In a shocking new development, The Washington Post has come out and said they were biased towards the Obama campaign during the election.
Of course the fact that they were biased is not shocking, we knew that, but to admit it is a surprise. They say that admitting you have a problem is the first step so maybe we can hope they are going to change their ways. Nah.
The story I am speaking of is here. It is an editorial by Deborah Howell, ombudsman of the Post. The very fact that the ombudsman is doing the article is in itself a trick also used by The New York Times. The Times will run an article that is, ahem, factually incorrect, and then later let the ombudsman come out and say that it was inaccurate. The difference is that the original story gets considerably more play than the ombudsman "clarification" does. Further, they let the story run for awhile and then run the ombudsman's article later. This lets the story percolate long enough to become truth in the mind of the reader and the correction is later ignored because people's minds are made up.
Ms. Howell shared with us some statistics that will not surprise anyone and then discussed the specific candidates and how they were covered in the paper and online, here are a couple of the better passages.
But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.
One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission. However, I do not agree with those readers who thought The Post did only hatchet jobs on her. There were several good stories on her, the best on page 1 by Sally Jenkins on how Palin grew up in Alaska.
This is nothing more than the usual press mea culpa that they do on a regular basis. They run articles about their biases occasionally and then go right back to business as usual. It's almost a confessional for them. They seem to have the impression that they can admit they were wrong and that makes everything ok.
The funny thing is, they're right. The analogy is the old caricature of the wife who has the husband that comes home late all of the time from carousing and drinking and then says "baby I'm sorry, I will never do this again". Like the caricature wife, we believe them and all is forgiven until the next time. For a real life example, see Hillary and Bill Clinton.
We know that the reality is most women are not like this, they would throw the bum out and let him sleep at his girlfriends house. So why aren’t we doing the same with the liberal media? Why don't we throw the bums out.
Based on recent earning reports and loss of circulation and revenue of every single liberal news outlet, the public may finally be starting to have enough. It appears that finally there are households all over the country turning off the liberal news media, canceling their newspapers, and not reading the weeklies.
We need to stop letting them getting away with this. Turn off the nightly news on ABC, CBS, or NBC. Don’t watch MSNBC. Refuse to read any newspaper or magazine that does not commit itself to balanced reporting. Anybody that subscribes to The Washington Post, cancel them, I would. They will either change when the economic costs become too great or go out of business. I personally am ok with either one.