The braniacs at the Washington Post have decided that they should sign up a right-wing blogger. Okay. I’m sure there’s a liberal blogger to even it out.
What’s that you say? They don’t have one? Oh, okay then.
Lord bless the unique brand of intellectualism the Post has picked up. Ben Domenech on evolution:
I believe the commonly taught theory of evolution is a total crock
When I was growing up my hometown paper was The Post. The bastion of journalism that uncovered Watergate and printed the Pentagon Papers is devolving into yet another mindless oultet of the conservative cult.
Could you really be upset over conservative blooger at the Post, Oliver?
Really?
I think this will work out just fine.
To be sure, the WaPo didn’t sign up one of the usual top-tier rightwing racist bloggers. But they got themselves one of the dumber (think Rob Port with a suit) bloggers.
There’s going to be mucho comedic material from ol’ Ben.
You mean the “liberal” Washington Post that pounded the drums silly for the Iraq war?
Frank_D-
Remeber that in Oliver’s world, the NYTimes is a right wing rag.
Oliver, I actually welcome them inviting this guy. He’s not very smart, articulate, learned or fair - sort of an online Bill O’Reilly. Nobody will take him seriously and nobody on the Right can possibly claim that the Washington Post is part of the so-called liberal media.
Of course, this guy is already peeing all over the carpet there, so I am guessing he won’t last long.
I would be fine with a con blogger at the Post if they also had a liberal one. Then I’d ridicule him based on his or her untenable positions and not because they had a monopoly on the paper’s online punditry.
Failure to “celebrate” the third anniversary of the war in Iraq is evidence of beating the drum?
With all the liberals working there, can’t they have one conservtive? Just one?
I’ve got more evidence here, Frank. And to both of you: it’s not that I think that the WaPo and NY Times are biased to the right (that doesn’t stop “stick” from saying so, but what can I do about those kinds of lies?). I think they are more or less neutral news organizations that, like so many others, have been so intimidated by the threat of “bias” that they no longer do any real journalism. Instead, its enough for them to just throw their hands up in the air and say “there are conflicting claims” and move right along.
Do some reading:
The Republican Noise Machine
What Liberal Media?
Or you can visit a site I like to call Media Matters for America, or maybe the good people at FAIR.
They swears on… on… the Precious.
.
.
…we all have our Gollum now.
He is a Christian who believes in the Bible. You may disagree, but do you really want the Post to exclude religious people because of their religious beliefs.
Keep in mind if you have ANY religious beliefs and believe in a higher presence, God, Allah, etc, you can’t prove it and can be sneered at just as easily as you sheer at Domenech.
And the Post voluntarily put him in because of the abuses of Dana Milbank, a fulltime liberal columnist. Remember this ‘unbiased’ columnist’s appearance on the (left wing) Olbermann show folloewing Cheney’s hunting accident - wearing a hunting outft. Yeah, there’s no need for presenting both sides at WaPO.
Dugger, Big Media is Overwhelmingly Liberal
Here we go again. By any OBJECTIVE standard which has been proposed, there is a noticable republican/anti-science slant in most big newspapers and tv news reports. But since you FEEL it to be liberal (which, let me remind you from the many times we’ve done this in the past, none of you can really articulate or define as it relates to news reporting, but which Media Matters and others have competently defined) it must be true. Hold the standards used by MM and FAIR up against the “standards” used by MRC and you’ll howl with laughter.
With all the liberals working there, can t they have one conservtive? Just one?
George Will.
mjb,
You then just state that FAIR and Media Matters are better and therefore there is no liberal bias. Thanks but I think I’ll trust my own sight and ears. How do these paragons of virture explain Dan Rather and the forged document? Brent Bozell trick? Conservative bias? Didn’t happen?
Dugger, CSPAN is just fine. Its Fox and talk radio against the world!
With all the liberals working there, can t they have one conservtive? Just one?
Charles Krauthammer.
“Example: There was an article, linked here by Oliver, regarding the fact that the Washington Post failed to publish an editorial on the third anniversary. That s not an indicator of bias of any kind.”
But mentioning that it is the 3 year anniversary of Iraqnam is an indicator of liberal bias?
Ben Domenech should check out http://goarmy.com. Seems like a 24yo pro-war Bushite could help his king in a more tangible way, than just war blogging.
Frank:
George Will is not a reporter.
Neither is Charles Krauthammer. Find a (conservative) reporter!
Oliver:
The bastion of journalism that uncovered Watergate and printed the Pentagon Papers is devolving into yet another mindless oultet of the conservative cult.
Point taken, Frank. I haven’t read the Post in years. Frankly, I’m not familiar with their reporting staff. But I imagine the true state of their reporting lies somewhere between your and Oliver’s assessments (i.e. no conservatives at all and mindless conservative cult).
George Will is not a reporter.
MJB: MM has two obvious deficits, that MRC rarely suffers (not MM’s fault, by the way, looking for liberals on TV news is like shooting fish in a barrel):
1) They spend way too much time talking about commentators (Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly) who are supposed to be biased; and
2) They call bias a failure to be as ideologically bent as they are. By that I mean not sufficiently anti - Iraq - war; not sufficiently anti - Bush, etc. Example: There was an article, linked here by Oliver, regarding the fact that the Washington Post failed to publish an editorial on the third anniversary. That’s not an indicator of bias of any kind.
And I’ll tell you how I define bias (show me an article from the New York Times and the New York Post — the difference will be obvious):
1) Editorial choice
2) Story placement
3) Headline
4) Tone of article (the most nebulous of the criteria)
And I may be stepping into it since I don’t read it, either. But how many liberal reporters does the Washington Times have?
Neither is Charles Krauthammer. Find a reporter!
“Thanks but I think I ll trust my own sight and ears.”
I thought it was your gut. Is your guy all tied up with all the “feeling” it does for you on Iraq?
“And I ll tell you how I define bias (show me an article from the New York Times and the New York Post the difference will be obvious)”
Oh this is classic. Frank, the NY Post is a notoriously conservative paper. I don’t think anyone would argue that it isn’t. Or is that what you are claiming?
The point is that of course the difference will be obvious because the Post is a conservative paper. Just because the Post covers a story different from the NY Times it does not follow that the Times is then liberal. It could also just be reporting objectively.
Dugger,
Rather than not dealing with the issue by pretending I asked you to believe what I said because I said it, why don’t you read how MM dealt with the allegedly forged documents on your own, then comment? Why comment if you haven’t tried to research it. Because you seem to be incapable of doing your own research, here you go:
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/bush_military_service
Notice they reach no conclusions, unlike the conservatives they are criticising.
Frank,
If you’d bothered to read what MM is all about, http://mediamatters.org/about_us/ (”news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda”) you’d see why the focus on commenters, because they usually are the most prominent vehicles for inaccurate, unreliable or incredible information, opinion or not. They never called bias a “failure to be as ideologically bent as they are”, but that’s a real topnotch strawman you got there. There is a difference b/w opinion and spreading false information.
If you want to rely on your untestable standards, rather than the easily verifiable use of false information which benefits one side or the other, go for it, but realize you are just admitting that you have based this extreme judgment based on a feeling.
There are of course examples of liberal bias which fit this definition, but that’s not what MM is about, and MRC would be more credible if it followed suit, but they’d rather rely on the same fuzzy feelings which you and Dugger use as a basis to call nearly all journalist incapable of doing there jobs.
And you’re right about the Times and NY Post. Their coverages will be much different, but more because the Post has a prediliction to repeating false information and prominently placing stories with no substance but which aim to enflame with small-word rhetoric.
For you, frame, I will make myself clearer — I know how you hang on my every word.
I meant that I could show the conservative bias in a New York Post covering the same event as a New York Times article, where I would then show you the liberal bias.
And, btw, in certain circles, as hard as you might find this to believe, the New York Times is viewed as a “notoriously liberal paper.”
MJB: Interesting. All I know about MM is what Oliver shows me. Do you think when he links to it, he is showing me its bad side? Of course not. I can’t think of a way to view a publication more favorably, than to have it’s excerpts presented to me by a happy employee.
Your bias is obvious — a liberal interpretation is “truthful”; a conservative one, a “lie.” Do you honestly believe that FOX is the number one cable news channel, because they lie, and no one can tell, no one can reveal those lies? C’mon — you’re kidding me, right?
“I meant that I could show the conservative bias in a New York Post covering the same event as a New York Times article, where I would then show you the liberal bias.”
Um, Frank. Doesn’t your little plan need a neutral?
“Need a neutral”? I’m not so sure. Not by the criteria set above (3/22/06 5:07 PM)
But, I’m sure there’s a major paper that could be used as a neutral. I haven’t investigated it, but I make a point of reading papers from all over the country online, when I’m checking out the news each day — including foreign english language papers.
I usually start with my MyWay page, and then my Google page.
And, oh yeah, is the smarmy “Um” business really necessary?
Frank,
fox is #1 because they know how to get away with lying, not because they lie.
And admitting you don’t read MM is not a way to convince anyone that you have a valid point about MM.
Oliver, you should totally apply.
I meant that I could show the conservative bias in a New York Post covering the same event as a New York Times article, where I would then show you the liberal bias.
Oh, yes, please! Would you?
George Will is not a reporter.
Neither is Charles Krauthammer. Find a (conservative) reporter!
I don’t mean to put a fine point on it, but Ben Domenech isn’t a reporter either. He’s a blogger.
MJB: You should read my comments before you comment on them/ I said I read the MM excerpts that Oliver trots out. I said that I presumed they were their best stuff, and the best examples of what MM is about.
Was I wrong?
Duros: I said I could, I didn’t say I would. You don’t pay me enough.
What’s with all the italics?
Frank, still not addressing the issue while still admitting that you don’t read MM. Reading the few that OW links to is not reading the site, after all you didn’t realize that they’ve don’t a ton of Rathergate coverage, but you didn’t have any idea that that was the case.
What s with all the italics?
Quoting. Is that correct? Sorry if I’m not doing it right. My html skills are rusty.
I for one would be interested in a compare & contrast of NYT v.NYP
duros, everything was coming out in italics, not just your quoting.when I have the time, energy and inclination — like maybe summertime, if the subject comes up again, I’ll give it a shot.