Posted on 11/05/2006 3:27:39 PM PST by Zack Nguyen
Readers, especially before elections, watch The Post closely for any hint of political bias. Recently, such complaints have come mostly from Republicans.
[SNIP]
In Maryland, profiles of Senate candidates -- Republican Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele and Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin, a Democrat -- were neutral to positive, as were those of the gubernatorial candidates, Democrat Martin O'Malley and incumbent Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R). I longed for a more critical eye, especially in the Cardin piece, which seemed relentlessly positive. Several readers thought Steele's profile should have mentioned that he flunked the bar exam, but a lot of folks do that. Pro-Steele readers were right to say The Post underplayed the story about several prominent black Prince George's County Democrats endorsing Steele. It was given one-column display on the Metro section front page.
Now to local races. Last Sunday there was a big Style layout of pictures and a favorable story on Isiah "Ike" Leggett, the Democratic candidate for Montgomery County executive; there will be no comparable Style story on Republican Chuck Floyd.
Jeanne Novotny, a Montgomery County resident, wrote: "I see the two-page article on Ike Leggett as a free campaign commercial. The Post editorial staff can endorse as it sees fit, but the Style section is not the place for an admiring piece on any candidate, particularly this close to the election." In a statement, Floyd called it a "puff piece" and said, "Leggett does not have to spend any money on advertisements because he has The Washington Post doing his bidding for him."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
However, note that even though several instances of bias are well documented, there is no effort at analysis, no discussion of why the Post might be biased towards Democrats, no admission that this bias is a systemic problem, and no resolve to do better in the future. I for one was flabbergasted that the endorsement of Lt. Governor Steele by prominent black Democats in Maryland was reported in the Metro Section. That is inexcusable. To me it was a major development in a hot Senate campaign that has received enormous national exposure.
We're just supposed to accept that all this bias occurs in a vacuum, I suppose, and keep eagerly reading the Post everyday. Not me, thank you.
Okay, so what's the deal with all of these "confessions"?
"Okay, so what's the deal with all of these "confessions"?"
Dinosaur MSM eating their own.
What she wrote is good. However, how serious are WaPo staffs in dealing with what their own ombudsman has to say?
I went a few personal rounds with the editor of my own local paper recently. He was pretty snippy, so I wrote a letter to the editor about the paper's bias, which they placed below the fold on the left side. Suddenly, the two local leftist columnists actually admitted to their bias (the paper doesn't employ and right-leaning columnists, of course) and the paper asked for a panel of 2 individuals from registered dems, repubs, and 3rd party to discuss the political reporting by the paper. The only result I saw was that the paper went out of their way to go even further to the left. I guess they were exhilarated by finally coming out of the closet.
and=any
I don't know about the WaPo specifically, but in general, the only power ombudsmen have is the ability to get their own opinions into print even when they have something negative to say about their own paper. The only time anything they say will have any effect is if it's so overwhelmingly embarrassing that the editors feel they have no choice but to do something about it, and needless to say, there aren't many newspaper editors in this country that are the least bit embarrassed about being shills for the Democratic Party.
"Recently, such complaints have come mostly from Republicans."
Trying to make it sound like in the struggle to be perfect, they sometimes accidently stray a little to the right or left at times, but it balances out.
The rest of the article doesn't say much of anything.
I agree that the Ombudsman either doesn't see the big picture, or just doesn't care to address the real point.
Washington Post to Republicans -- we were unfair, tough luck
Deborah Howell, the ombudsman at the Washington Post, finds that her paper's coverage of the Allen-Webb and Cardin-Steele races was biased in favor of the Democrat. In Virginia, Howell concludes, the coverage was too anti-Allen ("a profile of Allen was relentlessly negative without balancing coverage. . ."); in Maryland it was too pro-Cardin ("I longed for a more critical eye, especially in the Cardin piece, which seemed relentlessly positive").
But I bet those in power at the Post have no regrets -- unless Allen and/or Steele win, in which case they'll regret not having been even more partisan.
JOHN adds: Has this election cycle represented the high water mark of liberal media bias? I'm not sure; there hasn't been anything as out of bounds as the 60 Minutes document forgery. But day in and day out, I have the sense that the current cycle might set a new standard. The liberal media are determined to drag the carcass of the Democratic Party across the finish line, come Hell or high water.
The post is sinking fast. I live just outside NW and there is a local grocery store that has a Washington Post guy sitting at a stand often, offering 'free subscriptions' for a period, or a free paper on the spot.
He used to ask me every time I went in for milk or bread, until the other day when I said "No thanks, I still have some toilet paper at home", and he hasn't bugged me since. =P
Here's a thought: get the election coverage right in the first place, instead of apologizing two days before an election. Does anybody believe that the Washington Post will learn from their mistakes and get it right the next time? Of course not.
I hope they go bankrupt.
"I hope they go bankrupt."
So do I. What is funny is they don't know why it is happening.
I hope Jack Welch buys them (along with the Boston Globe0!
Count me in. I hope they go bankrupt too.
Complaints have come from Republicans, genius, because that is who you are biased against!
They could care less. Recall that Howell acknowledged in a previous column, about a month ago, that the Allen coverage had been too biased. Nothing changed, although the Webb coverage arguably became even more fawning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.