Masochism World

It was painful, but in the name of science, we read and categorized 108 Seattle Times editorials in the months of February and April, in an attempt to detect whether there is an editorial bias of some sort. The results were all too predictable.

The Categories

We used the following criteria to classify each editorial:

Radical--Capitalism must go down, and it must go down hard. Ascendant in certain regions of the world: Chiapas, possibly Albania, and probably a lot of other places the bosses don't even suspect.

Liberal--Capitalism and Imperialism are just fine, but maybe throw a few bones to the rabble once in a while. Ascendant to an ever-lessening degree in Scandinavia, Germany, Japan, and Canada.

Libertarian Capitalist--The magic of the market will create paradise on earth, if only we allow it to. Ascendant nowhere, except in the fantasies of a few deluded souls. And of course, in propaganda organs far and wide.

State Capitalist/Fascist--All human needs, feelings, and desires are subsumed to the Multinational Death Corporation, and its protector/servant, the state. Ascendant pretty much everywhere.

Frivolous--Puppy dogs are cute. We're in favor of them.

A Few Clarifications

Many editorials that landed in the Frivolous category were actually about important issues, but the arguments in these editorials had so little substance that they could not be assigned to proper categories.

Regarding the above categories: you already know that Newt Gingrich is the High Priest of corporate welfare, but if you're still unsure about just how vital state intervention is for a capitalist economy, or you don't completely understand why Orwell said that Fascism and Capitalism are Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum, you may want to do a little preparatory reading:

check out any book you can find by Gabriel Kolko, Fredy Perlman, Frederic Clairmont or Noam Chomsky (and Orwell himself, of course).

And Clinton is not a liberal. Not that things would improve greatly if he were.

The Results

Radical--0 Liberal--39 Libertarian Capitalist--10 Fascist/State Capitalist--29 Frivolous--30

At first glance, it may appear that Rush is Right after all, that the media really does have a liberal bias. But let us interject a few soothing comments before we rush to judgment.

1. There were only nine fewer Frivolous editorials than Liberal. And only ten fewer Fascist. Moreover, the vapidity and utter ignorance of the Times editorial writers is surprising, often even stupefying.

2. As alluded to above, having a liberal overseer is no prize.

3. A good percentage of the Liberal entries dealt with government corruption and campaign finance reform. Fine, but not exactly courageous.

4. Meanwhile, on the really important issues that make enormous differences in real peoples' lives--the stadium/corporate welfare, U.S. foreign and trade policy, Olympian debauchery (see ETS! #'s 36, 30, 26, 22), Welfare/Entitlement deform, corporate/advertiser accountability--the Times is either decidedly pro-business (Fascist) or perversely silent.

5. There was not one radical editorial in this whole time frame, or even anything that came close.

These results don't exactly jibe with Michael Fancher's warm, fuzzy sermons in the Sunday NAB (News-Free Advertising Behemoth), extolling the fairness and objectivity of the Times. The above results confirmed our worst suspicions of editorial bias.

So we want to present our results to the Times editorial board, and see what they have to say. Since they are apparently incapable of doing it themselves, MediaWatch is hereby offering to write a radical editorial critique of a current local issue once a week for the Times. Think they're taking? We'll keep you posted.

A list of all the editorials monitored, and the categories into which we placed them, is available at MediaWatch HQ for your perusal.

Letter To Michael Fancher

Dear Sir,

If you have not already heard, or discerned from the name, MediaWatch is a group of citizens--many of them not too different from yourself--keeping an eye on Western Washington media.

One of our recent projects was an analysis of 108 editorials printed in the Seattle Times during the months of February and April. As the enclosed results indicate, a rather rightist skew seems to be in effect, notably concerning issues which affect people's daily lives.

We were wondering if you and your editorial staff could comment on these findings? And, we were wondering if you're having trouble finding local editorial talent to help restore balance to your editorial page?

If so, look no further! MediaWatch is here to rescue you from your malaise. The rumors are indeed true: we will write a radical editorial for publication in the Seattle Times once a week--free of charge, no less. True, it would only be a drop in the ocean, as you well know. But wouldn't it be fun to be accused of being a comsymp, investigated by the FBI, and maybe even be served a subpoena to testify before a grand jury?

Anxiously awaiting your reply,

MediaWatch

THE MICROBOEING WATCH

Tracking the volume of The Only News That Matters to Seattle's Dailies

Seattle Times Seattle P-I Microsoft Boeing Microsoft Boeing Week of 6/15-6/21 Front page 1 4 0 5 Front section 0 1 0 5 Business 10 14 3 3 total in paper 12 19 3 8

6/22-6/28 Front page 1 2 0 2 Front section 0 0 0 1 Business 9 8 4 5 total in paper 10 10 4 8

MediaWatch is written every two weeks by members of the MediaWatch collective, a local group monitoring Seattle news media. For info or to get involved, e-mail mediawatch@u.washington.edu or call 632-1656.