'Liberal' Papers More Likely to Criticize Clinton

By: Greg Mitchell So-called "liberal" newspapers tend to be more open-minded and willing to criticize a like-minded U.S. president than their "conservative" counterparts, according to a report released last week.

In a study for The Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University, Michael Tomasky looked at 510 editorials over the past decade. He found that on their editorial pages The New York Times and The Washington Post criticized the Clinton administration 30% of the time. By contrast, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times opposed the Bush White House 7% of the time.

Tomasky also found a "striking difference in tone between the two sides as well," with the conservative papers using far "harsher" language in responding to Clinton and engaging in ad hominem attacks. The two sides, therefore, "represent two different models of journalism. The conservative editorial pages are more likely to think of themselves as being 'on the team,' as it were..."

In sum, Tomasky writes, "the two sides define partisanship quite differently and envision the roles they play as political actors very differently as well." The 57-page report can be found at www.shorensteincenter.org.