Replies

I'll tell you, though, that most good writers are aware of their biases, and make an effort to counteract them. I am sure many, many stories in the Post have included pretty invalid dissenting opinions, not because the writer felt that the truth of the story demanded it, but because he or she was bending over backwards to get another view in. Sometimes, our biases result in a story imbalanced in favor of the other side.

That's comical. Maybe we could understand it this way: the Post writers are so convinced of the truth of what they say that they assume that any opposing arguments are bound to be weak and unconvincing. So they work such weak and unconvincing opposing opinions into their stories. The result is that their own views are made to appear stronger and more well-grounded than they really are. So while the writers make their own arguments look artificially strong, they pride themselves on their toleration of opposing viewpoints. It's a scam.

I am so mad right now after watching a whole hour of Chrissy Matthews being biased I have already been seen spiting like he does. He is so elitist and obvious. I wish someone would take his street smart yankess butt and stomp it. He thinks to South is full of racists and he is pure lilly white and the North has no racism. I have got news for him. Go to any bit city in the North and you will see racism everywhere you look. They are segrated to an amount I have never lived in such hell holes. My gosh he lives in a multimillion dollare home and has to nerve to call the Southern people racists while his big white rear sucks in money by spitting and drooling. Gosh I am mad. And Buchannan can kill my you know what too. He is just as bad and biased.

They are biased, and the worse part is, they think it is okay! They are after all the one's who are right about things! That seems to be the attitude of this article in my opinion. I was a journalism student, and there is supposed to be NO bias in any article except those clearly marked editorials!

"In terms of coverage of news, newspapers honestly do make a strong effort to be nonpartisan. I can tell you there is NEVER any covert hidden agenda, wherein editors will say or think or act on the notion of: "Hey, the election is coming up and we think the Dems are better this year, so let's have some nice stories about them to help sway the votes." Never happens."

Weingarten asserted, essentially, that journalists are more liberal than the average person because they are better informed than the average person.

This seems to be an article of faith amongst journalists. I once heard Daniel Schorr state in an interview that the American people don't have time to develop expertise in multiple fields and "so we [journalists] are your experts."

That is a touching faith but it is tragically wrong. Certainly a reporter who does a few hours' worth of research on, say, firearms, is in a position to be better informed than someone who has never seen one. That is not expertise, it is a blithe assumption that a superficial look at a topic constitutes expertise. And the result is that every - and I admit of no exceptions - story printed in the mainstream media concerning firearms contains at least one major technical error and generally many of them. Shall we list other topics of which that is true? The military. Economics. Environmentalism. Medicine. Aviation. Technology in general. Literature. Law. History. It's a long and depressing list of incompetency masquerading as expertise and with the advent of the new media it's simply not going to work anymore. Were I in need of advice pertaining to a journalistic career Mr. Schorr would perhaps be able to function as "my" expert. Were the topic anything he reports about the answer is firmly negative.