I have long thought that, for all the railing against corporate chains and their devastating effect on mom-and-pop businesses, Starbucks was a big exception to the notion that Main Street is reeling from the effects of mega-commerce.
Lo and behold, both anecdotal and statistical evidence bears this out. Open a Starbucks next to an independent coffee house and demand for expensive coffee drinks actually increases, benefiting both establishments.
So if a Starbucks opens in the Stop & Shop plaza in North Canaan (as is rumored), would it harm the Black Forest Cafe across the street, or even The Roast in Salisbury? I’d wager those establishments will sell more coffee — not less. In fact, I’d be willing to bet my new iPod on it.
* * * * * * * *
Speaking of the new iPod my wife got me for Christmas, I have not only copied my old music to the gadget, but I have taken to downloading free podcasts of journalists chatting about the presidential campaign and listening to them in the car. I sampled two of them — one of which was well worth the trouble. The other made my stomach turn.
Slate’s Political Gabfest was terrific. John Dickerson, Emily Bazelon and David Plotz offer trenchant, informed and fair analysis, mixed in with funny anecdotes from the campaign trail. A pleasant, informative and humorous experience.
Then I had the misfortune of downloading and listening to “Political Points: On The Presidential Campaign,” a 20-minute discussion featuring reporters and editors from the NYT. Sam Roberts, Jane Bornemeier and Adam Nagourney all sounded exactly like NPR hosts, blathering on humorlessly about Iowa and the strategies employed by the candidates and the two parties in particular.
What struck me was not that the Times’ people were boring (which they were) but that on a couple of occasions they were operating on sets of assumptions that are either in dispute or just flat-out wrong.
The Bush tax cuts caused the current budget deficits, proclaimed Roberts (I think it was Roberts). He didn’t even use the typical journalistic disqualifier (”Some would say …”; or if he was an opinionator, “I think …”). At that point, I nearly swerved into oncoming traffic.
The fact is any administration foolish enough to increase spending by an average of 7% a year (way beyond the rate of inflation) is bound to find itself in a deficit spending situation. But not only did Roberts leave out the spending side of the argument, he seemed oblivious to the ample evidence that the tax cuts have actually increased revenue to the federal treasury.
Then I believe it was Nagourney who said he thought the condition of the economy would be a much larger factor in the Democratic caucus vote because “the Republican constituencies aren’t as affected by downturns in the economy.” Rough translation: Republicans are rich and the Democrats are a party of the little guy.
First of all, we should all know by now Democratic congressional districts tend to be wealthier than Republican districts. In fact, more than half of the richest U.S. households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats.
Click here to read my previous take on the issue and to get a link to the Heritage Foundation’s study.
As the year comes to a close, I am leave you with the following bit of journalistic wonderment: “Gee, don’t know why I ever thought the NYT favored the left …”
5 responses so far ↓
1 Jake // Dec 31, 2007 at 2:51 pm
This the issue (potential problem) with “ipod media”.
When I first got a Nano, I was overjoyed to be free of NPR and MSM radio. Now I could get thoughtful content that was not predictably sympathetic to the left. I started listening to stuff like Pajamas Media, Glen Reynolds, Stratfor, Hugh Hewitt, C-SPAN, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, the Cato Institute, and AEI. All were better and more thoughtful than NPR ever hoped to be.
On the occasion that I did listen to NPR or KCFR podcasts, they seemed so totally lame. They seemed to just rehash all the Washington media conventional “wisdom” (as your comments regarding NYT economics show).
Now after a couple of years of listening to mostly right leaning podcasts (and never even turning on the radio), I find myself out of touch with the views of the left. I only read the NYT when some blogger is blasting it for bad journalism. I only listen the non-political podcasts from NPR (like Frank Deford). And of course, if and when I watch TV news, it is on Fox News Channel, which is the only cable news channel that streams 24/7 on the internet (I don’t own a TV).
So now I know what it’s like to have been a Democrat for the last forty years. The only media I get is reinforcing my own views. I’m so out of touch with how the other side thinks that lefties seem more and more bizarre when I hear them. I would never go back to the old system, with lefties masquerading as “objective journalists”. But I do think about the fact that I’m only getting my views reinforced from the media I do consume.
The other day I got my car stuck in the woods and a farm lady and her sons pulled me out of the mud with their ATVs. While talking to the lady she mentioned that I should never believe what the “media” says. She’s probably right. It’s just entertainment anyway.
2 Terrence McCarthy // Dec 31, 2007 at 3:53 pm
I was listening to NPR in the car today. They had some woman on trying to explain how the Iowa caucuses work. It was mind numbingly boring and depressing. I had this urge, after three or four minutes listening to this, to veer into oncoming traffic. But I didn’t. Just changed the station to W Ay Yi Yi ( WEEI ) Those guys drive me crazy, but at least I understand what they’re saying. Unless the subject is hockey ( Or the Eton Wall Game )
But I do like NPR’s ” Fresh Air. ” And ” On Point. ”
Happy New Year. And come Thursday, if you have any questions about how the Iowa caucuses work - Don’t ask me to help you out.
3 Jenny // Jan 1, 2008 at 10:07 pm
geez, I’m tired of people trashing the New York Times and NPR - they’re such easy and predictable targets! I can’t bear the opposite - partisan media (of any stripe) where attacks are the norm, and assuming everyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or has suspect motives - that they’re actually less human and worthy of respect than those on the “good” side, whichever it may be. The NYT and NPR make a more-than good faith effort to REPORT - that is go talk to people, ask questions, dig, and dig some more. I am proud to get my news from both of them!
4 Terry // Jan 1, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Jenny,
I’m glad you feel comfortable getting news from NPR and the NYT. There are plenty of honest people, however, who view both of those organizations as “partisan.” Indeed my own personal view is that they are just as agenda-driven as Fox News — only more sophisticated in their approach.
I’ve had this discussion with my sister, who’s quite liberal. She readily concedes that NPR tilts left, but adds, “They’re biased in my direction, so I like them.” That strikes me as intellectually honest. I just wish I could find conservatives willing to say the same about Fox.
5 Jenny // Jan 2, 2008 at 11:29 pm
I think I’m willing to grant that NPR tilts left. Maybe. They make a great effort to include the “people’s view” say, in their coverage of the Iraq war, which they cover extensively, they talk to a lot of soldiers on the ground and vets struggling to return; they have done amazing coverage of PTSD and how the military has badly mistreated soldiers suffering from mental health problems as a result of their service…if that makes them “lefty” because they’re not just letting the powers that be trumpet their reasons for doing what they do - well, then our definitions of right and left are pretty skewed. But I think (and I know many who disagree including my husband) that the NYT is very objective. I feel the same way about the Wall Street Journal - I can tell the difference between the editorial pages and the rest of the paper.
Leave a Comment