From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Conservative Chronicle Commercials
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:53:19 GMT

kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu  Nathan Engle writes,
>>    Well, I noticed today that Rush has updated his CC spot (the one I was
>>criticizing a while back for using conspiracy theory style arguments about
>>liberal papers which allegedly buy columns and then shelve them so that
>>other papers can't get them.
> 
>>    Today Rush's commercial was more specific, saying that this is
>>something that happens in markets with 2 newspapers. That explained to
>>me a lot about my previous objections, but it still left me a little
>>confused.

>Nathan, there's nothing to be confused about. It happens. 

    Well, Glory Hallelujah, finally someone with a real example. This is 
what I wanted all along.

    I'm sorry to have appeared skeptical. I've tried to emphasize in 
several other posts that I didn't want to try to deny that shelving ever 
happens. I *do* think that it's a fairly stupid and short-sighted practise
if and when it occurs, but I guess it can happen. The main thing I've 
wanted all along is a single example, and now that one has been provided I'm 
honestly pleased because it bears out exactly what I've suspected. Shelving 
is not a media conspiracy; just plain old honest capitalism at work.

>Remember that Rush's "adopted home town" is Sacramento, CA. As a
>Sacramento resident (I used to llisten to Rush when he was a local guy on
>KFBK) I can assure you than in THIS two-paper town, columns DO get bought
>and shelved. But it's not a "liberal" conspiracy (well, maybe it is) but a
>fairly straightforward business deal. 

    That's what I suspected, and *that* is the real source of my confusion.
It seems to me (with my admittedly feeble logical skills) that the practise 
of shelving as described by Rush and yourself is not designed or intended 
to censor conservative columnists. That's why I objected to Rush's earlier 
CC commercial in which he said words to the effect that newspapers buy 
conservative columns and shelve them in order to run liberal ones instead. 

    Under the definition of shelving (as well as I understand it) I couldn't 
see why the practise of shelving should mean that liberal columns will be 
run instead of conservative ones. That depends on the bias of the individual 
editor, so it seemed to me that what Rush was really complaining about was 
not the practise of shelving but rather the bias of the editors doing the 
shelving.

    Consider two hypothetical towns. Let's even say that they both have 
2 papers, but one town's dominant paper has a shelving policy. I would 
assume that the amount of column space in each of these 4 hypothetical 
papers is limited, and that it's unlikely that they would run a full 
line-up of conservative columns even if they wanted to. Therefore, aren't 
the real arguments in favor of subscribing to the CC the same no matter 
whether shelving occurs or not? Shelving is not necessarily the only thing 
that prevents a newspaper from running conservative columns, and the 
competing (non-dominant) newspaper in the non-shelved town is no more 
likely to run a full line of conservative columns than the competing
(non-dominant) paper in the shelved town. I would be willing to venture 
the guess that the presense or absense of shelving in any particular 
market has *no* statistical relation to whether papers in that market carry 
the full CC line of columnists. The chances are effectively zero that any 
local newspaper would be able to run all those columns even if it had 
purchased every one and really wanted to run them.

    So, I guess what my feeble engineer's brain is confused about is that, 
if shelving has no statistical correlation to whether local papers run all 
of the CC contributors, why does Rush even bring it up? IMHO the primary 
reason for subscribing to the CC is the broad coverage of conservative 
columnists. There are a couple of reasons this broad coverage doesn't happen 
in local papers. First and foremost is limited space. Second and perhaps 
nearly as important is the bias of local newspaper editors who feel 
compelled to run at least some liberal columns (sometimes at the expense of 
conservative ones). Third is probably the cost of buying all the 
columns. Shelving might be fourth on the list in the few markets in 
which it actually happens. 

    So that's why I'm confused that Rush is still placing so much emphasis 
on shelving regardless of whether it happens or not. It seems almost like 
a slight-of-hand trick to distract peoples' attention away from the most 
significant reasons that local papers are the way they are.

>The real culprit is the McClatchy newspaper syndicate, which owns about 40
>papers nationwide. Locally, the Sacramento Bee is the McClatchy paper, and
>they've been trying to drive the competition, the Sacramento Union, out of
>business for several years. All the typical stuff; hiring away the popular
>writers, buying the best comics, buying all the good columns, so that the
>Union won't be able to run them. For example, the Bee has, in the past
>year, taken Ann Landers, Miss Manners, Calvin & Hobbes, and a dozen other
>comics away from the Union. They can do it because of their multi-paper
>buying power; Universal Features, for example, will sell a strip to
>McClatchy and ALL the McClatchy papers run it. It's a good way to kill the
>competition; the Anchorage AK TIMES just went under after years of
>competition from a McClatchy competitor. 

    That's extremely interesting, and I'm inclined to believe it even in 
the absense of stacks of other supporting evidence. It just has the "ring 
of truth" to it.

    Now, I suppose that the next logical question is to ask whether you 
have a list of these 40 or so McClatchy papers so that we can go through 
the list and decide whether they're liberal or conservative. If they're 
all liberal then maybe shelving really *is* a predominently liberal 
practise and in that case I would retract practically everything I've 
ever said about Rush's CC commercials. I don't suppose you have the list 
handy or know how to go about getting it?

>Anyway, believe it or not, it happens; it is happening here. And frankly,
>the Conservative Chronicle is well worth the $39.00 per year that I paid
>for it.

    I have never degraded the Chronicle or suggested that it's not worth 
the price of the subscription. My concern is Rush's marketing technique, 
not the quality of the product being sold.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle