It is that time of year, time to read through all of the convoluted legalese of California’s ballot initiatives and figure out where you stand on the most obscure laws that will probably never impact you. Some are easy. You know if you want to legalize marijuana, whether you oppose additional global climate regulations, or whether you are ready to get rid of the two-thirds vote to pass a budget. But some of the others, might be a bit more tricky.
One of the ways to figure out some of the others is to see who supports and opposes it. At the same time, it is interesting to look at a compilation of different endorsements to figure out where others are coming from.
I think there are a lot of interesting things that can be gleaned from this layout, but one of the more interesting is that it gives us a bit of a natural test for just how liberal the media really is, at least their editorial boards.
I would have put the Mercury-News as one of the papers, but they have not yet taken a position on three of the ballot items. The LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle and Oakland Tribune all took the same positions on ballot issues so they are combined and I put the Sac Bee, which is somewhat different, in the comparison.
This is certainly not any kind of definitive test, but at least in terms of the ballot initiatives in this cycle, I don’t see strong evidence of liberal bias.
The Democrats agree with the LA Times, et al, on four of the 9 ballot initiatives. The Democrats notably did not take a position on Prop 19, the marijuana legalization initiative, and the newspapers and the Republicans are in opposition to that initiative despite polls that suggest it might pass.
The Republicans did not take a position on Prop. 22, which is the initiative that would prevent the state from borrowing money from local governments and their redevelopment agencies. They agree with the LA Times et al newspapers on five issues.
Looking at the Sac Bee it has only supported one initiative, Prop 21. That is the vehicle licensee fee to restore state parks funding – something the Democrats support but not the LA Times or Republicans. The Bee agrees with the Democrats five times.
The Bee agrees with the Republicans four times.
The Democrats and Republicans agree on no issues. So, it is not as though there are issues with which there is common agreement. It is noteworthy that while the Republicans took no position on Prop. 22, Meg Whitman is a strong proponent of that ballot initiative.
I am not going to argue that the Bee is slightly more liberal than the LA Times. But I think we do have strong evidence that all of the papers are basically moderate on the issues. In all five cases, the split is 5-4. The Bee agrees with the Democrats five times and the other papers agree with the Republicans five times.
There is no evidence here of liberal bias, at least among the editorial boards.
There are a few issues where one of the parties seems out of whack with the rest. For example, the Republicans were the only ones willing to support Prop 23 which would gut AB 32, a bill that addresses climate change.
On Prop 24, the Democrats are opposing repealing legislation to allow businesses to lower their tax liability.
Republicans are the only ones supporting Prop 26, which would require a two-thirds vote for approval of certain state and local fees.
Democrats are the only ones supporting Prop. 27, which eliminates the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission – clearly that is a partisan motivation there, as they would control the redistricting process absent such regulation.
Democrats and the LA Times group agree on supporting Prop 25, which would drop budget vote requirements to 50% but preserve the two-thirds tax requirements. The Sac Bee, however, opposes that, along with the Republicans.
I did not include the San Diego paper, which is sometimes noted as more conservative. They only agree with the Democratic Party three times, and the Republicans six times. So they are slightly more conservative than the other papers.
Among interest groups, the teacher’s association agrees with the Democratic Party on every ballot initiative, and the AFL-CIO on eight of them (they didn’t take a stand on Prop 22). The Sierra Club took a stand on five, and agreed with the Democratic Party on all five. The Chamber of Commerce disagrees with the Democratic Party on all issues that they took a stand on. Howard Jarvis taxpayers took a stand on seven, and disagree with the Democratic Party on all seven.
This is far from any kind of definitive test, but it is interesting to note that, at least this year on these ballot initiatives, the papers are pretty much right down the center. The parties were completely polarized on each initiative, except that each party did not take a stand on one of the ballot initiatives.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
dgm: “This is far from any kind of definitive test, but it is interesting to note that, at least this year on these ballot initiatives, the papers are pretty much right down the center. The parties were completely polarized on each initiative, except that each party did not take a stand on one of the ballot initiatives.”
And you think stances on CA ballot initiatives is a definitive test as to whether the media is biased left? I would ask how often these newspapers run political commentary that is conservative in view? How often do political cartoons lampoon the Republicans vs the Democrats, taking into account cartoons that somehow appear to lampoon Democrats but insinuate skewering the Republicans? How often do these newspapers still blame Bush for the problems this nation is experiencing, refusing to admit Democrats have done their fair share of messing things up? Your bias barometer is not quite the same as mine 🙂
DMG: “This is far from any kind of definitive test”
ERM: “And you think stances on CA ballot initiatives is a definitive test as to whether the media is biased left?”
I wish we had emoticons about now.
dmg: “I wish we had emoticons about now.”
Sorry, what is an “emoticon”??? I could not find it in my dictionary…
By the way, I would argue stances on ballot initiatives is not any kind of test as to whether the media is biased left or not. I’m not even sure asking whether the media is biased left is even a valid question or just a stupid one. Clearly the LA Times and Boston Globe are left leaning. The National Review is definitely right. I would say the Wall Street Journal tends to be right of center, but that is bc it is business oriented. Some media is focused on one aspect of politics, such as the environment (isn’t Mother Jones concerned a lot with the environment?) To put it bluntly, I’m so tired of injecting political affiliations into every discussion about any subject. I would much prefer to talk about a Propostion or particular issue on its merits period. Besides, if the media is or is not biased left, your point is what???
An emoticon is a small graphic that denotes an emotion like a smile, or laughing, or some more sinister ones.
In terms of testing, it is a test of where the editorial board stands on the spectrum. Why wouldn’t it be a test? It’s more objective than some of the arguments I have heard that you cannot even measure. This is at least measurable.
I spent a lot of time in graduate school studying the issue of media bias and it’s a very tough issue to study. Most people have some sort of subjective idea about it. The problem with subjective impressions is that people tend to notice and remember when they disagree with something more than when they agree, so there is a perception bias. And from an objective level, it is tough to measure. At least this gives us something tangible even if it is limited to non-partisan, nine issues, and one ballot.
In terms of philosophy about what state government should or should not be doing and how what it does helps or hurts the economy, Prop 23 seems like a good litmust test. First, if you are a conservative, chances are very strong that you would not have voted for the regulations it would suspend in the first place. And secondly, if you are a conservative, you likely think that those regulations are harmful to our jobs/business climate and since we have such a high unemployment rate it makes sense to suspend them until our economy is much stronger.
So when I look at how the newspapers addressed that one issue, I get a sense for whether those papers fall mostly on the right or the left side of the mid-line of our political spectrum:
Ten papers (of those listed in the graphic) took a position on 23:
No: San Jose Mercury; SF Chronicle; Oakland Tribune; Santa Rosa Press Democrat; Sacramento Bee; Fresno Bee; LA Times; and LA Daily News.
Yes: Orange County Register; Riverside Press Democrate
Even though conservatives are a minority among California voters most of the time, I think newspaper publishers are a bit more liberal (meaning they favor more government involvement in the economy) than the public at large. And I think the split on this issue demonstrates that.
If you take an issue like pot legalization–which I favor, largely because pot criminalization has failed for 65 years and will continue to fail forever–you notice that no newspapers have endorsed it. They might be right–maybe this prop will bring on other new problems which we don’t need. But their negative reaction to it is not a sign of conservativism. It’s a sign that they are liberals, not libertarians.
The fact that every newspaper favors Prop 20*–redistricting–while the Democratic Party opposes it, does not show that the newspapers are not liberal. It shows that their liberalism is not based on partisan favoritism. The Democratic Party does not favor the current system based on philosophical grounds. They just know–or at least their incumbents know–the current redistricting system is one they can and have gamed.
*Prop 27 proves this too, in reverse.
Today’s papers include some endorsements in the governor’s race:
LA Times — Jerry Brown for Governor ([url]http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-governor-20101003,0,913011.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+latimes/mostviewed+(L.A.+Times+-+Most+Viewed+Stories)[/url])
Sacramento Bee — Jerry Brown best pick for governor ([url]http://www.sacbee.com/2010/10/03/3073192/jerry-brown-best-pick-for-governor.html[/url])
SF Chronicle — Jerry Brown for Governor ([url]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/03/EDCL1F4Q46.DTL[/url])
Rich: Which looks bad, except all of those papers endorsed Arnold last time if not in 2003 as well.
Rich Rifkin: “If you take an issue like pot legalization–which I favor, largely because pot criminalization has failed for 65 years and will continue to fail forever”
Criminalization of murders/robberies/DUI has failed to stop murders/robberies/DUI, so shall we legalize murder/robberies/DUIs to save the state money?
Rich Rifkin: “…–you notice that no newspapers have endorsed it. They might be right–maybe this prop will bring on other new problems which we don’t need.”
Ya think?
Rich Rifkin: “But their negative reaction to it is not a sign of conservativism. It’s a sign that they are liberals, not libertarians.”
Huh?
dmg: “Rich: Which looks bad, except all of those papers endorsed Arnold last time if not in 2003 as well.”
To me, media bias is less a factor on local issues versus national issues. That is why I don’t think stances on state Propositions is necessarily a good barometer of whether a particular news media is left or right.
Rich Rifkin: “First, if you are a conservative, chances are very strong that you would not have voted for the regulations it would suspend in the first place.”
I think this is a mischaracterization of conservatives. Many conservatives believe strongly in a certain amount of gov’t regulation, and are frustrated that the gov’t under many administrations has not carried out its proper regulatory functions. And many conservatives do not want to see the gutting of many social services, e.g. Medicare and Social Security.
Conservatives opposed both Social Security and Medicare when they were proposed. In fact, conservatives opposed most labor laws, most of the New Deal, US entry into WWII, the Marshall Plan, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, the Equal Rights Amendment, and probably several others I haven’t thought of.
On the other hand, President G.W. Bush pushed through the huge expansion of Medicare via the unfunded prescription drug benefit, which is a substantial part of the ongoing deficit we will be dealing with for years.
I am no longer sure what conservatives stand for.
Well on that note the Democrats haven’t changed, just look at how much the state and country are in debt.
ELAINE MAKING A BOGUS ANALOGY: [i]”Criminalization of murders/robberies/DUI has failed to stop murders/robberies/DUI, so shall we legalize murder/robberies/DUIs to save the state money?”[/i]
People who smoke pot enjoy it and if it harms them, that is their choice, good or bad. People who get murdered don’t enjoy it.
[b]Rich Rifkin: “…–you notice that no newspapers have endorsed it. They might be right–maybe this prop will bring on other new problems which we don’t need.” [/b]
ELAINE BEING SNARKY: [i]”Ya think?”[/i]
I do think, Elaine. I would love to see evidence from you I am not alone in that endeavor.
The secondary problems of pot legalization will be smaller than the problems of Prohibition, which you favor. Prohibition has resulted in a bloated prison population and widespread crimes (including murders and robberies) which will end once pot is legal. (That’s just what happened when the alcohol gangs were put out of business by alcohol legalization.)
It’s true legalization does not solve all problems. Prohibiting people from drinking alcohol caused far more violent social problems than we had before or after.
The difference with legalizing pot as opposed to booze is that pot is a much less dangerous drug than alcohol. It is less addictive; it leads to less violent behaviors among most users; and a stoned driver is much less dangerous than a drunk driver.
[b]Rich Rifkin: “But their negative reaction to it is not a sign of conservativism. It’s a sign that they are liberals, not libertarians.” [/b]
ELAINE STILL BEING SNARKY: [i]Huh? [/i]
The difference between liberals and libertarians is this: liberals believe in governmental solutions to problems like drug usage; libertarians don’t. So liberals — at least those running those newspapers — can easily prefer government action to prevent people who want to smoke pot from doing so. Libertarians never would resort to a governmental solution for a free choice like pot-smoking.
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
[b]Rich Rifkin: “First, if you are a conservative, chances are very strong that you would not have voted for the regulations it would suspend in the first place.” [/b]
ELAINE: [i]”I think this is a mischaracterization of conservatives.”[/i]
If you are right and I am wrong, then conservatives in the legislature in 2006 would have voted in favor of AB32. I have Googled this but cannot find a record of that vote, yet. When I find what the vote was, I will post it. My suspicion is that every conservative in the legislature voted no when presented “The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.”
” except all of those papers endorsed Arnold last time if not in 2003 as well.”
I agree with Elaine that local politics are a much less useful bellwether for assessing bias than are national issues.
However, we would need to consider the choice and the time.
When Arnold ran against Phil Angelides we had a hopping national economy. And, Angelides was a money guy and a big real estate developer. In the end, he was just not liberal enough to distance himself from Arnold (the same one married to a Kennedy).
Today we have a crashed economy and a very poor jobs outlook… and even with these, because of a clear separation of ideology, the reliable left papers made sure to stay planted firmly left with a Brown endorsement. Meg is no Arnold thankfully.
[i]”If you are right and I am wrong, then conservatives in the legislature in 2006 would have voted in favor of AB32. … When I find what the vote was, I will post it.”[/i]
I found a record of the vote. And just as I suspected, every single Republican, 32-out-of-32, in the Assembly voted no on AB32 ([url]http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_32_vote_20060831_0405PM_asm_floor.html[/url]). They oppose this kind of thing based on a more conservative philosophy. They were joined by one Democrat, who was also a conservative voter, Barbara Matthews from Tracy: [quote] Aghazarian, Benoit, Blakeslee, Bogh, Cogdill, Daucher, DeVore, Emmerson, Garcia, Haynes, Houston, Huff, Keene, La Malfa, La Suer, Leslie, Matthews, Maze, McCarthy, Mountjoy, Nakanishi, Niello, Parra, Plescia, Richman, Sharon, Runner, Spitzer, Strickland, Tran, Villines, Walters, and Wyland. [/quote] In the Senate, there were 15 Republicans at that time. However, Bill Morrow (R-San Juan Capistrano) missed the vote. Of the others, all 14 voted no ([url]http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_32_vote_20060830_0948PM_sen_floor.html[/url]), while every Democrat in the Senate voted yes: [quote] Aanestad, Ackerman, Ashburn, Battin, Cox, Denham, Dutton, Harman, Hollingsworth, Maldonado, Margett, McClintock, Poochigian and Runner. [/quote] Elaine may think that “state Propositions (are not) … a good barometer of (what it means to be) left or right.” On many issues I might agree. However, I think AB 32 and Prop 23 are perfect indicators of our philosophical left-right divide.
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Interesting read, especially that not all biases follow certain conventional expectations. I would note that the measures were made on a liberal measuring stick — the ADA.
But I would like to see an equivalent study done with a conservative measuring stick. What if, for instance, some issues really don’t really break down into either liberal or conservative? I’m certain, for instance, that on a liberal measuring stick, God, Mom, and apple pie show up as solid liberal causes. So any media outlet that covers God, Mom, and apple pie will be tilting liberal. I enjoy the News Hour w/ Jim Lehrer, but it does tend toward dry fare, often wonkish, and I don’t remember ever hearing any stories on God, Mom, and apple pie on that show. So by those standards, the News Hour might not seem to tilt so liberal. But I’m certain that the conservative measuring stick also includes God, Mom, and apple pie as solid conservative causes. So I think you’d find some slightly different results if you used a different measure.
Rich Rifkin: “I found a record of the vote. And just as I suspected, every single Republican, 32-out-of-32, in the Assembly voted no on AB32. They oppose this kind of thing based on a more conservative philosophy.”
I guess this is where you and I will have to agree to disagree. I don’t necessarily equate “conservative” with “Republican”!
Rich Rifkin: “and a stoned driver is much less dangerous than a drunk driver.”
LOL Didn’t you see the recent headlines about the singer Michael George, an addicted pot smoker, who drove his car through a front window of a store?
ERM: “District Judge John Perkins said he had taken a “dangerous and unpredictable mix” of prescription drugs and cannabis” before driving.
Which is illegal, and shall remain illegal.
You are really running out of arguments at this point.
“I don’t necessarily equate “conservative” with “Republican”!”
Given how fiscally irresponsible Republicans have been in my memory, I agree. But again, I don’t really know what conservatives do stand for at this point.
Well on that note the Democrats haven’t changed, just look at how much the state and country are in debt.
The Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency for the first 6 years of the decade. Their fiscal policy was to cut taxes and then allowing for increased deficit spending. This was after having budget surpluses from the previous administration. I never understood why that was sound fiscal policy from a conservative viewpoint.
“I think AB 32 and Prop 23 are perfect indicators of our philosophical left-right divide.”
In our hyper polarized political climate, we see more votes based on partisanship than ideology these days. However, on climate change, I think the right-side ideology is skeptical of the liberal political-media-scientific partnership that has ramped up the anti-business rhetoric to unprecedented levels. Also, we have this little problem of near 13% unemployment. It is really not the time to hammer business with more costly regulations.
Interesting for me… I find Zero fellow conservatives/republicans/right libertarians that dislike the natural world and want to damage the environment. However, I find plenty of left-leaning folk that dislike big business and have no problem laying some damage on it. Seems maybe Republicans are voting defensively against the more aggressive and dominant Party in this state.
Don Shor: “ERM: “District Judge John Perkins said he had taken a “dangerous and unpredictable mix” of prescription drugs and cannabis” before driving.
Which is illegal, and shall remain illegal.
You are really running out of arguments at this point.”
From the Middletown Journal: “LONDON — George Michael was sentenced to eight weeks in jail and lost his license for five years Tuesday for driving under the influence of drugs when he crashed his car into a London photo shop. A British judge told the wayward star his addiction to marijuana put him and the public at risk. The former Wham! singer pleaded guilty last month to driving under the influence and possession of cannabis following a July 4 collision between his Range Rover and a Snappy Snaps store in north London. District Judge John Perkins told the singer he had taken a “dangerous and unpredictable mix” of prescription drugs and marijuana. “It does not appear that you took proper steps to deal with what is clearly an addiction to cannabis,” the judge said. “That’s a mistake which puts you and, on this occasion, the public at risk.””
The judge certainly thought Michael George’s addiction to cannibas was the problem. This just illustrates the kind of diffuculties that are going to occur if marijuana is legalized – people won’t hesitate to smoke pot while taking prescription drugs, not realizing the multiplier effect this has… There is very good reason no reputable newspaper has come out in favor of legalizing marijuana.
Elaine, you do realize that your response that “driving while under the influence of marijuana can be dangerous too” does not negate what I said: that driving drunk on alcohol is the more dangerous of the two.
If you want to go back to alcohol Prohibition, then say so. That may well be your opinion. But if you use arguments to ban marijuana but neglect the much more dangerous drug, you are not being consistent.