In his May 30 “Best of the Web Today” column, Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal.com editor James Taranto criticized a May 29 Associated Press news analysis article by political writer Ron Fournier titled, “Democrats Eye November Landslide,” and issued a challenge to test his theory that the “mainstream media” are “generally biased in favor of liberals and Democrats, but this ends up helping conservatives and Republicans by breeding complacency on the Democratic side.” Taranto asked: “Can you find a similar article — that is, a news story, not an opinion column, preferably written months before the election — speculating about the possibility of a Republican landslide in 1994, when there actually was one? How about in 1980?”
Click here for, as they say, the rest of the story…
This highlights the rightwing leitmotif.
Certainly, Taranto has access to Nexus-Lexus and the WSJ’s own archives. Therefore, Taranto knew what he was writing was a lie. He wrote it anyway because he understands rightwingers don’t question dubious claims if they fit the agenda.
Just like good little sheep.
As usual, the right wingnuts will never question Taranto’s article, and the meme of the “liberal media rooting for a Democratic win” will continue.
Thanks for the good work at MM pointing out the lies in their articles.
Actually, it was a poor effort by Media Matters. Right off the bat Taranto says “months” before the election, yet five of MM’s points are WITHIN two months of the election. And the others could be easily nitpicked (two is merely stuff from Haley Barbour).
I’d say: Advantage Taranto.
Dugger
Stop eating the paste, Dugger.
Oh, I get it Cyrus. It’s not an op-ed piece, it’s a scavenger hunt. Like in Highlights for Children!
Can YOU find the seven bunny rabbits hiding in this picture?
Actually, Taranto asks for something “preferably months before the election”–but not exclusively–and he only asks for one article (”a similar article”).
By his own criteria, Taranto has been hoist by his own pitard.
And I don’t get the defense that some of it is “merely Haley Barbour,” but now I’d love to see Dugger referee a football game. “Yes, he broke the plane of the goal line, but since the receiver was merely Terry Glenn and not Terrell Owens, this touchdown is only worth four points.”
THis is all a silly exercise. The polls were not as clear in 1994 of the prospect of a Republican takeover. I was listening to Rush at the time and of course everyday he drummed it into our zombie ears that there will be a landslide, but that was nothing more than a talking point based on a desire to reaffirm the extraordinary efforts the Republicans were putting into GOTV. Turns out they were right and their work paid off, but the fact remains that there simply was no evidence “months before the election” that it would happen. Today there is.
Besides, Taranto said “can you find” a similar article. He never said you couldn’t.
Exactly. He said find them, you found them. Declare victory and move on.
Or in the case of Highlights, declare victory and resume with your visit to the pediatrician.
Sometimes, it really is too easy….
…to predict the retorts of brainwashed wingnuts trying to defend someone who marches in lockstep with their political ideaology.
What’s next, did one of the articles in 1994 use kerning?
And the earliest article is June 26th. Remind me, “reality-based” guys: Is that before or after May 29th?
Why do you feel the need to defend Taranto in such a ridiculous manner? Is he a family friend or something?
BD said,
“Actually, Taranto asks for something preferably months before the election but not exclusively and he only asks for one article ( a similar article ).”
Well, how clever then of Media Matters. they camouflaged their response. Eight answers, but a minimum of five were nonsensical.
Dugger