Fox News, CNN and partisanship in the news

Piece in the Times today claims that Fox News merely reflects a return to the 19th century practice of partisan journalism — but that it’s not alone. Just check out the audience numbers.

In audience surveys from August 2000 to March 2001, Fox News viewers tilted Republican by 44.6 percent to 36.1 percent. More narrowly — 41.4 percent to 39.4 percent — so did the audience for MSNBC. The audiences of CNN, Headline News, CNBC and Comedy Central leaned Democratic.

Four years later, amid the Iraq war and President George W. Bush’s re-election campaign, the audience data had shifted. Fox News viewers had become 51 percent Republican and just 30.8 percent Democratic, while MSNBC viewers leaned Democratic by 41.7 percent to 40.4 percent. Viewers of CNN, Headline News, CNBC and Comedy Central grew slightly more Democratic.

By 2008-9, the network audiences tilted decisively, like Fox’s. CNN viewers were more Democratic by 50.4 percent to 28.7 percent; MSNBC viewers were 53.6 percent to 27.3 percent Democratic; Headline News’ 47.3 percent to 31.4 percent Democratic; CNBC’s 46.9 percent to 32.5 percent Democratic; and Comedy Central’s 47.1 to 28.8 percent Democratic.

This is all very interesting, but it doesn’t really tell us anything about the journalism — or propaganda — being purveyed by the respective cable news networks. (Why the hell are they measuring Comedy Central in there, anyway?) It’s true that MSNBC features more straightforward liberals in its lineup than the other networks — but it also has former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough in the morning. CNBC has Reagan-worshipping free market prophet Larry Kudlow as a key part of its lineup. CNN has Lou Dobbs. And Headline News was Glenn Beck’s first television home, lest you forget.

So it’s not necessarily the case that all the non-Fox networks decided to appeal to Democrats as a business strategy. It seems just as possible — just as likely, in fact — the demographics have changed because conservatives have decisively fled the non-Fox networks for the warm ideological tongue bath they get from Fox. That’s left the other networks with only Democrats as their audience. And as the lineup of stars above suggests, they still don’t cater to their ideological audience as thoroughly as Fox News does. Suggesting, as the Times does today, that Fox isn’t all that unusual flies in the face of common sense.

Winners get to write history books, stem cell rules

I’ve noticed a peculiar argument coming from opponents of President Obama’s decision to lift restrictions on stem cell research. Larry Kudlow made it the other day at National Review, and this morning it appears in a Washington Post column by Michael Gerson.

Gerson:

There is a common thread running through President Obama’s pro-choice agenda: the coercion of those who disagree with it.

It is the incurable itch of pro-choice activists to compel everyone’s complicity in their agenda. Somehow, getting “politics out of science” translates into taxpayer funding for embryo experimentation.

The essence of the complaint, as I understand it, is that the Obama Administration isn’t just doing something that Gerson and Kudlow find objectionable — but that it’s somehow even more morally objectionable because taxpayer dollars are involved. Which is really a silly argument.

I’ll drag out the Iraq War analogy again. George W. Bush launched the invasion even though I and millions of Americans were opposed, often on moral grounds (in addition to national security grounds). By Gerson’s logic, Bush made me complicit in his pro-war agenda by using tax dollars to fund the invasion and occupation — and I should be even more cranky about the war as a result.

But I’m not. The essence of democracy is that the winners of elections* get to run the government more or less as they see fit. There are restrictions on those actions, of course, to protect the rights of people in political and other minorities, but there’s no right not to have your tax dollars spent only on stuff you like. That’s why elections really, really matter.

I noted in the comments the other day that Kudlow and Gerson have an option if they don’t want their taxes to go to stem cell research. It’s called “tax resistance.” Basically, you live in poverty in order to avoid giving your money to the government to use for purposes you find morally objectionable. Some Mennonites have adopted the practice in order to deprive the Defense Department of their funds. If Kudlow and Gerson are serious about their opposition to using tax dollars for stem cell research, they can take a vow of poverty. Or they can win the next election.

* I’m not going to fight the George W. Bush 2000 election battle here. Consider it acknowledged.

Abortion, war and the hypocrisy of CNBC’s Larry Kudlow

CNBC’s Larry Kudlow is probably best known for his unbending defense of free markets and low taxes, but today he wades — perhaps jumps, considering that he’s possibly a candidate for the Senate in Connecticut — into some sticky non-economic waters. His post at National Review’s The Corner is titled “As a Catholic I Oppose Obama’s Actions.” And he writes:

How can you destroy a life in order to save one? That’s a key question Pres. Obama is not answering as he aborts Pres. Bush’s ban on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. We already have existing stem-cell lines, plus blood cells and skin cells. So why must we seek new stem-cell lines from human embryos?

And why is taxpayer money necessary for this? That means those of us who oppose embryonic stem-cell research — for ethical, moral, or religious reasons — must finance it. Why not leave all this to the private sector and private capital? That wouldn’t make me any happier from a moral standpoint. But at least I wouldn’t be paying for this research with my tax dollars.

So he did bring it back around to the free markets. That’s Kudlow for you.

Now let me tell you: I hate abortion politics. Hate ‘em. I completely understand why pro-life people think it’s murder. And I also completely understand why pro-choice folks see it as an issue of freedom over their bodies. The whole subject makes me queasy, I’d like to avoid taking sides and I’m probably dumb as hell to raise it here.

The standard paradox that gets raised in pointing out hypocrisy is that a venn diagram of pro-lifers and death penalty proponents would depict a substantial overlap between the two groups. (The opposite would be true of pro-choicers and death penalty opponents.) But there’s another, more stark paradox at work — and that is the overlap (and political alliance between) folks who are pro-life and hawkish advocates of the use of American military power.

To demonstrate what I’m talking about, let me take you back to 2002. I give you Larry Kudlow, advocating for an invasion of Iraq. Because, well, it would be good for the stock market. (Kudlow always brings it back around to the free markets.)

Decisive shock therapy to revive the American spirit would surely come with a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Why not begin with a large-scale special-forces commando raid on the Iraqi oil fields? This will send a shot across Saddam’s bow; an electrifying signal to all terrorist nations. The message will be that the game is up. Surrender now or you will be crushed in a short while.

The shock therapy of decisive war will elevate the stock market by a couple-thousand points. We will know that our businesses will stay open, that our families will be safe, and that our future will be unlimited. The world will be righted in this life-and-death struggle to preserve our values and our civilization. But to do all this, we must act.

I’m not Catholic, so maybe this is an unfair cheap shot. But I want to ask Larry Kudlow, why did you not proclaim that “As a Catholic, I oppose President Bush’s invasion of Iraq?” After all, Popes John Paul and Benedict — whatever else you think of them — have pretty consistently opposed the war there.

But Kudlow thought the war was needed. A war that was certain to result in death and injury to innocent civilians — certain, because even when minimized these tragedies always accompany war — and that ended up being far worse in these regards than any initial supporter of the invasion would’ve suspected at the time. Why? To keep our businesses open. And our families safe. And our future unlimited. And Kudlow judged the benefit to be worth the cost.

When the subject turns to stem cell research, though, Kudlow asks a good and important — vital — question. Let’s repeat it here:

How can you destroy a life in order to save one?

For what it’s worth, I think the moral dimensions of stem cell research should be carefully weighed — but I also think that such research should proceed. I’ve also opposed the Iraq War since the beginning. So I’m not saying that I’ve attained a higher standard of moral rigor or consistency than Larry Kudlow. (Although I would argue that the killing of actual humans is morally worse than sacrificing a few cell clumps.) But I wonder, given the certainty of his statements, if Kudlow has considered the paradox. Or if he would even acknowledge it.