Posted on 01/29/2009 7:09:55 AM PST by EricTheRed_VocalMinority
I was hoping someone would to do this eventually. From the Patterico’s Pontifications blog:
If you think Republicans and Democrats are portrayed the same at the L.A. Times, read on.
It’s “Obama is bipartisan and Republicans are jerks!” week at the Los Angeles Times.
On Monday we were told that Republicans signaled they “would not be daunted by President Obama’s soaring approval ratings” — and McCain was chided for his “sharp[] criticism” even though he was the “recipient of aggressive outreach as part of the new president’s efforts to forge an image of bipartisanship.”
Yesterday we were told that “Republicans have continued to snipe at [Obama's] signature initiative.”
Today’s Los Angeles Times contains another song of praise for the very, very bipartisan Obama, and more loaded language portraying Republicans as intransigent jackasses:
Trying to build support for his $825-billion economic stimulus plan before a crucial vote, President Obama traveled to Capitol Hill on Tuesday but continued to meet a stubborn wall of complaints from Republicans that the cost of the package was unacceptable.
So to sum up: Despite Obama’s reaching across the aisle, Republicans “aren’t daunted by [his] soaring approval ratings.” Instead, Republicans are continuing to “snipe” with their “sharp[] criticism” and “stubborn wall of complaints.”
Just as a reminder: in 2001, when newly elected President Bush was pushing a tax cut plan, the Democrats in opposition were portrayed a little differently:
Democratic leaders, now on the defensive, argued that Bush’s plan is too large and too heavily skewed toward the wealthy.
They fear that projections of the federal budget surplus–$5.6 trillion over 10 years–could be wildly overestimated and that the tax plan’s fiscal drain could be underestimated. If so, the tax cut might leave none of the surplus to shore up Medicare and Social Security and pay down the national debt.
Among Democrats sensing the growing sentiment for a tax cut, opposition is built around concerns that the federal budget cannot handle increased Pentagon spending, growth in Medicare and funding of domestic policy initiatives that Bush favors while leaving a “rainy day” fund to protect the balanced budget against an economic downturn.
Democrats served notice, however, that they would support tax cutting, but only so far.
How courageous! And how different from Republican sniping and that stubborn wall of complaints from the GOP.
But just remember: all this newspaper is doing is reporting the news, straight down the middle. Nothing more, nothing less.
And that’s just from one newspaper for one week of the Bush presidency.
Nope. No liberal media bias here!
http://VocalMinority.typepad.com “The Jewish Republican’s Web Sanctuary”
All journalists receive a two-dictionary set when they graduate. One is used when Rs are in office and the other for Ds.
The 0media and the Democrats are one and the same. The 0media leads the way to the left, and the Democrats follow. Journalists are the front line in the war on conservatives.
It is in my experience a great mistake to try to prove that journalism is not objective - for the simple reason that that is a political opinion. You would do just as well to expect to be able, in an hour's conversation, to convert a Democrat to a Republican. My point is not the mere fact that I can cite examples of tendentiousness in journalism until the cows come home, and my point is not simply that no one can prove that journalism is objective because lack of bias is an unprovable negative. My point is that I have a right to listen to Rush Limbaugh, provided only that he makes his program available to me on terms that I am able and willing to meet, without reference to what a politician or judge, or all of them, think of Rush Limbaugh's opinions. Just as surely as your garden variety "sheeple" has a right to listen to Katie Couric. A government which distinguishes between the two is not operating under the Constitution.
The claims of journalists to "objectivity" are mere self-promotion. Journalism as we know it is an invention of the Associated Press, which was founded two generations after the words "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of . . . the press" were ratified into the Constitution. Belief that "the press" in the First Amendment refers specifically to the Associated Press, or that "the press" was supposed by the framers of the Constitution to be objective, or that members of the Associated Press are in fact objective, qualifies you for membership in the class of citizen known as "sheeple."
I agree with your assessment completely. What has to be pointed out though is that hopefully, by exposing this bias for one side, it will move some people to look more closely at the facts, or do some independent research before accepting everything written or spoken by a member of the “press” at face value.
When I think of the “press” as it was at the time of the founding, I think of Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine and others who published and distributed their political arguments. At the time the only means of mass communication was the “printing press”. They were certainly not unbiased. As it as evolved, the “press” was the one to hold itself up as objective and a protector of the people.
The framers wanted everyone to be free to express their opinions and beliefs without reprisal from the government. It is that simple.
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.