Are you ashamed of the biased presidential coverage?

It was Peggy Noonan, IIRC.

 

You know, I've spend a lot of my years in this business defending it against the Sean Hannities of the world -- not him personally, but the type -- in saying that I had spent a lot of time in news meetings over that time and had yet to see an elite liberal conspiracy being hatched. I couldn't deny that a lot of reporters and editors were liberal, but the idea that they all get together to hatch liberal plots was ridiculous.

I actually still believe that, but it's become almost impossible to imagine that anybody would believe me.

 

I do.

 

Do you have proof of any of that? Show your work.

If not, you're beyond full of shit.

 

It's about empowering an expression. You coin it, you define it, then things fit nicely into the notion you created. You coin the phrase "liberal bias" then you use any case where someone isn't pro-conservative as being biased, hence "liberal bias."

Same thing has happened with the phrase "weath redistribution" discussed earlier. You coin the phrase. You define it at your convenience. Then it all of a sudden makes sense to someone who doesn't think it through.

 

Well, of course, the other thing that's happening is these rabid McCain and Palin supporters harassing the media at rallies and whatever, and that feeding the whole thing.

There's a growing anti-press movement on the conservative side that scares me a bit, and while I've stayed completely out of this election, it's the one of the main things that make me more pro-Obama.

 

I heard overheard today some young Republican dude talking to some older Republican about how we should have continued to fight the Russians after World War II and nuke them if only we had more nukes and that Patton's jeep "accident" was probably a hit.

And that the Russians had won because their ideology had taken over the media and the country.

Oh, and then he asked the older guy for the name of a good divorce lawyer and I thought then that his wife just caught a big break.

 

I'll take "beyond full of shit" for $500, Forever.

 

Hey, clutchcargo? Don't feign surprise when you walk into a room and people move to the other side.

 

The idea is not to have an equal amount of "negative" and "positive" stories. It's to treat both sides the same and not wear your bias on your sleeve.

Gibson and Couric did both with Palin. And they treated her differently than the other side. (Palin did little to help herself, too. That's obvious.) They had a clear agenda of making her look bad.

And that's from someone an observer who is neither Republican nor Democrat any more.

 

I thought the idea was to treat each side fairly.

And for an unknown candidate who was thrust onto the national scene with about two months left before the election, I thought that Gibson and Couric showed a sense of urgency in trying to find out her qualifications that they didn't have to show when questioning Obama or McCain (both of whom I think have also been treated fairly, by that segment of the media.)

No, she wasn't treated "the same." But the general public also didn't have 21 months to find out who Sarah Palin was. Why should she be treated the same?

 

Fairly would have been a better word for me to use in my previous post.