But where's empirical evidence for the New York Times' influence?
Just to take one major example, in 2004
The New York Times endorsed John F. Kerry for President,
but
The Columbus Dispatch (OH), the conservative family-owned monopoly newspaper of the capital of Ohio, as well as the Findlay Courier (OH), the New Philadelphia Times Reporter (OH), and probably many other suburban newspapers in Ohio, endorsed George W. Bush for President, and the (Cleveland) Plain Dealer (OH) -- the largest circulation newspaper in Ohio -- endorsed no one, though Kerry got endorsements from the Toledo Blade (OH), the Dayton Daily News (OH), and the Akron Beacon Journal (OH).
We know which won.
It's also possible that newspapers in general have lost influence over the public, in comparison to other media: in 2004, Kerry won endorsements from 208 newspapers whose collective daily circulation was 20,791,336, whereas Bush bagged only 189 newspaper with their total daily circulation of 14,455,046 ("Newspaper Endorsements in the United States Presidential Election, 2004," <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_U.S._presidential_election,_2004>).
And yet, Bush clearly got more popular votes nationwide than Kerry in 2004 (unlike Gore in 2000).
> Policy changes occur in this country when the elites disagree. Those
> disagreements often first get a public airing in the NYT.
That is possible, but there is no major disagreement among the power elites on the biggest issues, for the time being. The "Iran Freedom Support Act," which Bush just signed into law, is a case in point. The elites are committed to the same policy till 2011:
SEC. 204. SUNSET.
Section 13 of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended by striking `on September 29, 2006' and inserting `on December 31, 2011'. <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109CKBbsy::> -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>