On Perusing the Newspaper
Much has been said and written about liberal/Democrat bias in the media. I contend that it exists but is often not deliberate, being essentially institutionalized. For various reasons, usually sociologically obscure, the majority of writers and reporters tend to be a bit left of center. While they may intend to be "fair and balanced" (I love that phrase), human nature intrudes, with unconscious bias as the result. (There are of course exceptions, like Paul Krugman of the increasingly moribund Gray Lady, but then he is a columnist and entitled to his very obvious bias.)
Today I had a rare period of relaxation, as a wonderful home care aide was caring for my wife, so I sat down and read our major newspaper throughout, at least the news sections. I was struck by a couple of examples of what I was discussing in the previous paragraph. So, in a fit of nitpicking, here they are.
There was a front page article, complete with candidates' photos, presenting a remarkably detailed analysis of campaign rhetoric from three Republican congressional candidates, two from Wisconsin, noting that position statements on their Web sites were remarkably similar in content and wording. The stated explanations by the two intrepid investigative reporters were that these were cases of plagiarism or copying from a common source. Horrors! As if Democrats never spouted the party line. Not much balance here.
An article on Page 2A , also complete with photos, described an allegation of "an inappropriate relationship" on the part of the female Republican candidate for governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, which she vehemently denies of course. The point here is the candidate was clearly identified in the first sentence as the "tea party favorite ... Republican candidate ... endors[ed] by Sarah Palin." Horrors again!
O.K., that in itself could be justified as factual reporting. However, in a sidebar next to the fold on Page 4A, sandwiched between four other briefs, was a short blurb about Richard Blumenthal, the Connecticut Attorney General running for the U.S. Senate, who had for years claimed Vietnam War service that he never performed. This is a major scandal there. Nowhere in the article is he identified as the Democratic senatorial candidate. An innocent omission? Perhaps.
Maybe I'm just a conspiracy nut, but truthfully, I wasn't looking for anything controversial, just reading the paper. These perhaps trivial little juxtapositions just struck me. Ah well, maybe I need to get a life.
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.






48 Comments
Carl Hicks - May 26, 2010 11:51 AM
The more likely reason to me is the simple fact most news sources are located in large metropolitan areas and large metropolotan areas are predominantly liberal.
lake country progressive - May 26, 2010 11:51 AM
At least you know what the problem is. I doubt if you can fix it, however.
sirlaughsalittle - May 26, 2010 1:08 PM
Seems pretty factual to me. If a reporter at FoxNews described the candidate the same way it would be viewed as a positive.
aneuhauser - May 26, 2010 4:32 PM
aneuhauser - May 26, 2010 4:38 PM
jhayett - May 26, 2010 9:19 PM
Carl Hicks - May 26, 2010 10:07 PM
Onlyoneme - May 26, 2010 11:58 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNMi5Nj5qfQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgUVxz_4zAE
He does say that the problems are not Democrat problems or Republican problems but America’s problems. However, he does not mention his party affiliation. Could it have been because he was distancing himself from the Republican Party in 2008, or a simple omission? Perhaps the circumstances are similar in the article you mention.
aneuhauser - May 27, 2010 12:45 AM
lake country progressive - May 27, 2010 7:09 AM
So again I say, you are definitely a conspiracy theorist for thinking there’s a “media” bias.
jhayett - May 27, 2010 8:38 AM
Part 1:Dear JS,
Over the years I have proven just how bias and liberal this paper has been. And still is. The recent debacle from Obama and the democrats with regards to the BP spill is a perfect example. When President Bush took four days to go down to New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, this paper, and the mostly hateful bias MSM, blasted Bush. And I mean blasted Bush. Now we have Obama’s Katrina, and just recently our the fourth branch of the government, the ultra-liberal ACLU, was found handing out names and photos of CIA agents to terrorists so to assist the most hateful group to ever walk the face of the earth. And where is our newspaper and the journalists who should be reporting these stories like they did with their hate against Bush and any Republican over Katrina and Plame? Nowhere to be found. And yet you and I still debate the rising bias journalism from your paper. It’s why the Milw JS has lost so many subscribers and why it’s too late to run with my advice I gave you years ago: get more balanced and stop the liberal bias that permeates this paper.
When the democrats in Washington accused Bush and the Whitehouse for releasing the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame, the MSM and our Milw JS, went on a rampage to find out who leaked the name of a CIA agent. Headline news was the daily norm for our dishonest MSM. Your paper was no exception. Now we have the ACLU giving out not just names, but photos to terrorist groups as well. Yes, terrorist groups. Yet this paper has kept silent and no investigation. Why?
jhayett - May 27, 2010 8:39 AM
The project, according to a Washington Post report in August, hired contractors to photograph CIA officers who were thought to have carried out terrorist interrogations. Those photographs were then to be provided to defense lawyers representing some of the Guantanamo detainees as part of an effort to identify the interrogators, for possible use as witnesses in military or civilian trials.” http://skepticalbureaucrat.blogspot.com/2010/03/what-would-john-adams-do-about-aclu.html
When Hurricane Katrina blasted the shorelines of Louisiana, the media did their own blasting of Bush and the Republicans for their 3-4 day response to this disaster. Here are some of the headline stories and articles in such hate filled papers like the NY Times:
“Meanwhile George Bush has scheduled some more face-time before the cameras. Besides leaving his vacation three days after the disaster struck and fiddling with some no-name musician that no one has ever heard of, he is now saying nothing about how he is going to help, he even joked about sitting on Trent Lott's new porch (once he rebuilds his house) as if this crisis is a joking matter.”
"If the bungled federal response to Hurricane Katrina called into question the president’s competence, that Air Force One snapshot, coupled with wrenching scenes on the ground of victims who were largely poor and black, called into question something equally important to Mr. Bush: his compassion.”
jhayett - May 27, 2010 8:41 AM
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/node/7219#ixzz0p8RBWXww
Where’s the balance? Obama took nine days to address Katrina and 38 days later still has no answer or clue what to do. Where is our newspapers outrage? This is why the Milw. JS is known for their bias news and is why so many have dropped their subscription. Time to wake up.
Carl Hicks - May 27, 2010 11:37 AM
jhayett - May 27, 2010 12:46 PM
So again I say, you are definitely a conspiracy theorist for thinking there’s a “media” bias."
You give real meaning to bias and dishonest journalism. I can see why you are a liberal and vote for democrats. WOW!
lake country progressive - May 27, 2010 2:13 PM
aneuhauser - May 27, 2010 2:34 PM
aneuhauser - May 27, 2010 2:38 PM
Carl Hicks - May 27, 2010 7:57 PM
Don't forget here though that one was a story about fraud ( boring) and the other is a sex scandal and we know how those always take top billing.
aneuhauser - May 28, 2010 1:04 AM