3 run homer wrote:There obvious bias in media that's why most major markets have a couple of big hitting papers, such as here in DC we have the post which has been deemed the liberal paper and we have the times which is tagged as a conservative paper.
As has been pointed out before, it's human nature to lean to one side or the other.
Actually, the Post's circulation is at least 6-7 times that of the Times. The Post is simply higher quality, legitimate reporting; the Times is simply not that good. If you make the front page of the Post you're stoked because people take it seriously; the Times, you're mildly satisfied for a few minutes. People take Tony Blankley seriously, and that's about it.
Most major markets have one bigger paper (the quality paper) and one or more smaller papers (lower quality). The reason most markets have more than one large paper is because natural media consolidation isn't completed in those markets; partly because they're large enough to support multiple papers. If you do an actual content analysis, you'll notice that bigger genuinely equals better. This is why the Globe is twice the Herald in Boston, and why the Post-Examiner is half the size of the Times in Seattle - most people want to read papers that do a better job delivering the information. Biased papers don't do that as well. In pretty much each case, the market has determined which wins, and it's all about quality of reporting.
But I'm sure there's a cockamamie theory to explain that as well...