Here's the original article on partisanship (which seems like it has a laughable methodology) --
To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9598-2002May13.html Ranking the Big-Time Pundits By Howard Kurtz Do you find some columnists eminently predictable? Can you figure out their position on virtually any issue before picking up the paper? Ever have the sense that they defend Bush on matters for which they would have barbecued Clinton (or vice versa)? We confess to such feelings occasionally. The best columnists, it seems to us, have not just a fast ball and slider but a good curve ball, the ability to surprise readers with an occasional contrarian stance. To zig when everyone else is zagging. Even commentators who are usually liberal or conservative sometimes demonstrate their creatity (not to mention independence) by challenging the company line. Those who don't come to resemble partisan warriors over time. Sort of like Terry McAuliffe and Marc Racicot, but better writers. Now comes a little-known blog called <a href="http://www.lyinginponds.com";>LyingInPonds.com</a> (don't ask us) to attempt to rate the opinion-mongers at three major newspapers for predictability this year. We're not vouching for the methodology (the mathematical explanation was a little complicated for us), but they are rated by a Partisanship Index (or PI) based on how often they back Republicans and bash Democrats, or bash Republicans and back Democrats. The envelope, please: "The Wall Street Journal has five columnists in the top ten (out of a total of 34 pundits) and eight of their nine in the top half of the rankings. "Paul Krugman has been able to effortlessly stay ahead of the Journal crew so far. His steady anti-Republican screed stream gives him a huge lead in Median PI. The other pundits mix in more columns on non-partisan topics and occasionally find that all issues do not break down neatly along partisan lines. "The '90's aren't over yet for Michael Kelly and Robert L. Bartley; they are in the top five mostly because they keep the anti-Clinton columns coming. Lavish praise for George W. Bush puts Peggy Noonan high on the list. "None of the Wall Street Journal pundits wander off the Republican reservation. The New York Times pundits are by far the most anti-Bush. The Washington Post has two Michaels (Kelly and Kinsley) at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum in or near the top ten." Here's the list, with partisan score: 1. Paul Krugman, New York Times (88) 2. Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal (45) 3. Robert Bartley, Wall Street Journal (44) 4. Michael Kelly, Washington Post (44) 5. Michael Kinsley, Washington Post (35) 6. Thomas Bray, Wall Street Journal (35) 7. Claudia Rosett, Wall Street Journal (33) 8. Mary McGrory, Washington Post (29) 9. Frank Rich, New York Times (28) 10. Collin Levey, Wall Street Journal (23) And the editorial pages: 1. Wall Street Journal (23) 2. New York Times (14) 3. Washington Post (4) Who is this guy, you might ask? "Lying in Ponds is the creation of Ken Waight, a research meteorologist who lives in Cary, North Carolina with his wonderful wife and three awesome children." He says by e-mail that he'll try to keep up the rankings but would "like to stay happily married and gainfully employed." ----------------- Jim Devine
