Friday, January 24, 2014

The Shape of the Playing Field, Part 3

If such a thing is possible, I participated in a useful discussion on Twitter last night.  The principal participants included my internet radio partner—St. Paul attorney John Gilmore—Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial page editor Scott Gillespie, and former editor and current Southwest Journal columnist David Brauer.

Prompting our conversation was the apparent decision by the Star Tribune to discontinue the weekly Sunday Opinion page “Contributing Columnist” feature, in which non-liberal voices rotated through about once a month.  The feature included columns from conservative author Katherine Kersten, conservative radio talk show host Jason Lewis, and centrist politicians Tim Penny and Tom Horner.
 
That space is to be filled by a weekly column from current Star Tribune staffer D.J. Tice.  I’ve met Mr. Tice on a number of occasions and have read his work for years.  Not to damn him with faint praise, but he strikes me as a reasonable sort, very middle-of-the-road.  To my taste, he comes across as more Joe Lieberman than George Bush.  Perhaps, though, I will be pleasantly surprised by his work in this new role.

Some on the political left in Minnesota will cheer the purging of the last conservative voices in the state’s largest daily newspaper.  Perhaps some within the Star Tribune offices will be cheering along with them.

Make no mistake:  I understand the Star Tribune is private property—owned by a private corporation—and they may do whatever they wish.  But also concede that the Star Tribune offers a left-of-center editorial viewpoint and its news pages feature a left-of-center sensibility.
Mr. Brauer was among those cheering the move, telling us that the current conservative lineup was not “worthy” and did not “best showcase” our side of the aisle.

What makes a conservative “worthy”?  It is a willingness to support the larger progressive cause?  In Part 1 of this series, I quote National Review’s Jonah Goldberg on the liberal view of what the proper role of conservatives should be in the national discourse,
"Good conservatives... should know their place and gladly serve as Sherpas to the great mountaineers of liberalism, pointing out occasional missteps, perhaps suggesting a slight course correction from time to time, but never losing sight of the need for upward 'progress' and happily carrying the extra baggage for progressives in their zealous but heroic quest for the summit."
[Update:  Mr. Tice's first effort in his new role turns out to be exactly that, a call for a new era of Sherpa Conservatism.  Tice writes,

"Republican politicians still bring forward constructive conservative reforms, of course (often now at the risk of becoming a Tea Party target).  But more are needed.  Repealing Obamacare, for example, is probably fantasy, but the program desperately needs improvement. Conservatives would be best equipped for the job—not only because it’s true that conservatives originated the whole idea of using insurance subsidies to reform the health care marketplace, but also because, unlike progressives, conservatives actually believe in the marketplace."]

For another view of a worthy role for conservatives, in Part 2 of this series, I quote the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto as he reviews a piece by Time magazine’s Joe Klein on the subject of ObamaCare,

What Klein wishes for is a division of labor in which the two parties would cooperate to make government bigger.  He'd like the Republicans to reinvent themselves as a non-ideological party devoted to effective management, which would allow the Democrats to focus on expanding government.  In such a world, Democrats would face no serious resistance to their legislative efforts, and there would be less risk of ObamaCare-style failures because the elephants' job would be to clean up after the donkeys.
With conservative voices in the Star Tribune limited to the occasional commentary or the—rarer still—Op-Ed submission that slips through the net, what are we losing with the absence of diversity on the opinion pages of the state’s “newspaper of record”?

For the reader, the absence of dissenting views—or when rebuttals are allowed only to hand-picked issues at certain times—reinforces the impression that no credible opposition exists to the progressive worldview or that there exists no viable alternatives to liberal policies.  As a result, conservative election triumphs (like Scott Walker’s) or the failure of progressive initiatives (like MNsure) catch the reader by complete surprise:  from faithfully reading the Star Tribune, they would not be aware such outcomes were possible.
In an ideal world, a newspaper’s Opinion page would serve as a modern-day Roman Forum, a clearinghouse for the marketplace of ideas.  Intelligent, articulate voices for every viewpoint would get their chance to be heard and the best ideas would prevail.

But the reality of today’s media market is that consumers tend to self-segregate into enclaves where only their own viewpoint is on offer:  both the left and the right have their own cable TV outlets, radio stations, magazines, and websites.
A general circulation newspaper is one of the dwindling number of spaces where consumers of diverse viewpoints still gather.

Perhaps the Star Tribune has decided the MSNBC model will work for them:  become the media champion of the progressive left and you will have a small, but extremely loyal following.
I still believe that even a liberal newspaper and its readers would benefit from a regular conservative presence on its pages.  Thoughtful conservative commentary that describes, week-in-and-week-out, a workable alternative set of policies based on a competing worldview would force liberals to sharpen their arguments and readers to expand their horizons.

No comments:

Post a Comment