Since they left out everything about the papers except syndicated columnists. Since the local folks, the editorial board, the editorial cartoons, etc. are all overwhelmingly left, they can afford a bit of ‘balance’.

The matter of who controls the paper is a matter of newsroom terminology.

If you refer to the senior editors, such as managing, news, and -in-chief, then liberals are the vast majority.

If, however, you refer to the administrative management, such as publisher, ad manager, plant operations, etc., then the leanings are conservative.

In other words, if they control content they tend to be liberal, whereas the money people are conservative.

In this case, the study looked at columnists and opinion writers.

These are a strange case as they are neither news (and put a lot of effort into that distinction) nor are they management. Most editorials (as opposed to columns) are discussed, voted on, and decided by an editorial board, which is usually made up of the publisher, controller, editorial editor, editor-in-chief, and managing editor. In other words, two libs, two righties, and the editorial editor.

Now, again in this case, the editorial editor is in charge of hiring and selecting the columnists. But the publisher is generally key in selecting the editorial editor, as leaving that call to the editor-in-chief opens the door for claims of bias and a merger of newsroom and editorial.

So…. this study, as conducted, likely did find a 60% or greater conservative tilt to opinion. But, if the researcher had looked at the newsroom, I think the numbers would’ve skewed quite far the other way.

A) Form a hypothesis
B) Gather data (if none is available, make data up)
C) Design “study” around data that “proves” hypothesis
D) Discard data that does not support hypothesis
E) Publish report that hysterically trumpets “SEE, I TOLD YOU SO!!!”
F) Plug ears and chant “Nah, Nah, Nah, I can’t hear your” when the flaws in study methods or data are pointed out.
G) Sit back and watch media report the results of the “study” as gospel.

But antigun media bias is pretty clear and obvious.

Selection bias, weird definitions, and simple self-delusion.

When I can show the ratio of antigun to progun writings, articles, and coverage on my hands or the scale leans toward pro-gun, I’ll pay attention to this sorta spiel. When I leaf open TIME magazine toward an approving report card on the new Democratic Senate (how far to the left do you have to be to think that this Congress deserves an A on clearing out corruption, or that 2 out of 8 goals earns a B?) and see this to be the more conservative side of the magazine (they did get a C somewhere).

Hey, call as I see ‘em.

And yeah, that’s like Microsoft investigating itself for anti-trust violations. hah!