A little history will explain the column's success. Tom Johnson, then
publisher of the Los Angeles Times, opened the syndication door for me in
1984. It was a time when liberals dominated the op-ed page. Tom is both a
liberal Democrat and a good friend. I have known him since his days in the
administration of President Lyndon Johnson. Tom practices pluralism. He
bought my argument that there were too few conservative columnists,
especially ones writing about values, faith and culture. He took a chance on
a guy from a broadcast news background. He hasn't come over to "my side,"
but he practices the principles of the First Amendment as well as anyone in
the news business.
In building the column, I told editors they were missing a significant
demographic: politically and religiously conservative people who had stopped
reading their newspapers because they didn't see their views represented.
Most did not want to censor liberals (though a few did). They wanted to be
included in the pluralism about which they hear so much. I told editors if
they bought this column, they would be rewarded with hundreds of new
subscriptions. They did and they were. As I traveled across America, I found
that a majority of my conservative audiences no longer read their local
paper, but most said they would if the paper carried me. That's just
old-fashioned door-to-door salesmanship.
One more point. Liberals have many outlets for their ideas. They have the
three broadcast networks, PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, and most of the big
newspapers. (Only one conservative columnist is employed and regularly
carried by The New York Times and he rarely challenges that newspaper's
liberal social agenda.) In light of such ideological media imbalance, the
liberal claim that Fox News Channel exists does not cancel their
overwhelming media advantage.
The Media Matters survey is not only wrong about the number of newspapers
that subscribe to George Will's and my columns; it's also wrong in its
presumption that we are overly "influential" (whatever that means).
So, what conclusion should be reached? Only that Media Matters doesn't.