The link to the study appears to be busted.

n/t

Here's the working link

http://mediamatters.org/reports/oped/?f=h_top

just how bad the Free-Lance Star is. Thank you Media Matters for spelling it out in plain English.

But don't worry. Fredericksburg area Dems plan on countering this in a very tangible way in the not-too-distant future.

is the appalling Arlington Sun-Gazette.  Its op-ed pages are reliably conservative - even moreso than Arlington's tiny little Republican Party contingent, I'd venture.

I'd rag on it in detail, but as best I can tell, it's pretty much a one man operation, and I almost feel bad for poor old Scott.

I agree with much of what you say.

To the list I'd add: Good local sports coverage; pretty decent page design.  Inane op-ed section.  Reminds me of a college newspaper run by the least talented guy on staff.

I don't want to be too harsh, because I appreciate that the work can be absolutely thankless.  I like the idea of a locally focused paper, I just think that the execution could be so much more.

The heavy reliance on real estate advertising seems to make for some hilariously one-sided coverage of real estate related matters too.  Having spent a short-stint doing trade publication work though, I empathize with some of the realities that the paper likely faces.  One way or another you've got to be able to pay the rent.

saying that Webb was too persnickety for the "rarified air" of the Senate, even though they also described Allen's legislative record as lacking and uninspired and were concerned about Allen's seeming dislike of the job. 

I look forward the reading the study in its entirety -- as well as finding out what the methodology of the study was. 

Some preliminary thoughts:

How the Washington Post stack up in this study?

Also, how does the Daily Press stack up? (A good regional paper in my view)

The VA Pilot and Landmark newspaper chain

In defense of the Virginia Pilot, I think a distinction is in order for looking at social conservatives v. fiscal conservatives; knee-jerk reactionaries v. thinking conservatives. 

Remember the editorial board of the VA Pilot endorsed Webb in the general election -- as well as Drake.  The paper clearly has an independent streak, which is to be admired. 

The paper also hit on the Blackwater story before many national papers.

It's also worth noting that the chain that owns the Roanoke Times also owns the Virginia Pilot (Landmark Communications). 

Allegations of perceived or actual bias notwithstanding -- I think that these are two truly outstanding regional papers (in terms of both the opinion sections and news reporting). 

In many ways I think these papers are on par, and perhaps even superior to what the Washington Post has become -- certainly in terms of editorial content, and quite likely in terms of its commitment to its readership. 

As a person who really loves print news and great reporting, I am heartened to see that Virginia has papers like the Roanoke Times and the VA Pilot.

RTD and Media General

It's worth pointing out that the ownership of the RTD is the same ownership of Daily News Wretched, the Bristol Herald Courier, the Daily Progress (in Charlottesville), the News and Advance (Lynchburg), the Danville Register and Bee -- as well as others.  There are clearly some good reporters and writers (Bob Gibson being perhaps the state's most respected political reporter and columnist). 

I don't get the sense that the ownership is as committed to the public interest as the Landmark papers (e.g. unless the public interest is defined as giving maximum coverage to things like the American Idol appearance of local semi-legend Elliot Yamin.  Alas, no Pulitzers are forthcoming.  However, the paper's commitment to the Virginia Tech shootings, and its coverage of the event is praiseworthy.)

The Fredericksburg Free-Lance Star has good sports coverage -- and some good political reporting.  On balance I think it's opinion section is not so much conservative or "progressive" as simply Bush league. 

As far as the Washington Post is concerned, the top syndicated columnists that appear in the Post are (ranked by "total reach" according to Media Matters methodology):

1. George Wlll (CONSERVATIVE)
2. David Broder (CENTRIST)
3. Charles Krauthammer (CONSERVATIVE)
4. E.J. Dionne (PROGRESSIVE)
5. Eugene Robinson (PROGRESSIVE)
6. Richard Cohen (PROGRESSIVE)
7. Robert Novak (CONSERVATIVE)
8. David Ignatius (CENTRIST)
9. Jim Hoagland (CENTRIST)
10. Anne Applebaum (CENTRIST)

By my count, that's 3 conservatives, 3 progressives, and 4 centrists.  That's about an even split, which is about how I see the Post -- a corporate, centrist newspaper that is liberal on some issues (e.g, the environment, gay rights), conservative on others (e.g., "free trade," the Iraq war), and that never met an incumbent Republican "moderate" (e.g., Tom Davis, Frank Wolf, Connie Morella) it didn't like.

The man may not be a social conservative, but I would be surprised if he's EVER cast a vote on behalf of a Democratic candidate (and that's a LONG, LONG voting history).

I'm not sure how Media Matters determined his partisan/ideological classification.

Cohen, I would also see as more of a centrist these days than a liberal or progressive.  I think he's gotten a little cagey and reactionary in his older days.

I agree with your reading of the ideological leanings of the Post's editorial page.  Strongly anti-union (in part, probably because of the labor strike in 1978 or 80 when it's presses were taken out of commission); socially left-leaning; and definitely a big fan of The Establishment.

Stunning that they would be so conservative what with Eric Cantor's wife Diana on the board of directors for Media General, the expanding media conglomerate that owns RT-D, Tampa Tribune, bunch of TV stations, etc.

http://www.mediagene...

And am I correct that those stats only apply to the syndicated columnists?  I wonder what the numbers look like if you include Ross McKenzie, Bart Hinkle, Bob Rayner, etc., etc.  Egads.

Although the Post is hardly the bastion of liberalism that the right makes it out to be, did the study by Media Matters include the Post in its analysis?

On balance I think its a interesting point, but is there a difference with regard to the internet content of those papers or is it to merely a mirror of the printed paper. If on balance we look at the internet and the blogs I would have to say the conservatives are getting crushed by the the more progressive blogs in Virginia in terms of content and views so I wonder if there really is more balance in terms of politics when considering all media content.

In the case of the Washington Post print version and washingtonpost.com, I've noticed that certain stories that get buried in the paper are prominently displayed on the front of the website.  I think that there may be some customization in terms of audiences.  e.g. the thought being that the online audience is substantially more "progressive" than its print readership; or perhaps it could reflect a difference of viewpoints between print and online editors in terms of what makes a story deserving of greater attention.

Did anyone notice that the papers in Southwest Virginia were the most progressive. I guess there are some people out here fighting the good fight