Lap Up Anything Said by Administration Opponents Filed under: General, Media Bias

Patterico's Pontifications ^ | 02/10/2007 | Patterico

[airedale]

Lap Up Anything Said by Administration Opponents Filed under: General, Media Bias — Patterico @ 4:41 pm

Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post has some interesting advice for journalists ,

* Don’t assume anything administration officials tell you is true. In fact, you are probably better off assuming anything they tell you is a lie.

* Demand proof for their every assertion. Assume the proof is a lie. Demand that they prove that their proof is accurate.

* Just because they say it, doesn’t mean it should be make the headlines [sic] . . . .

He also advises “reasonable speculation” about hidden Administration motives.

Note that Froomkin is not merely advising general skepticism of all sources, which would be an admirable journalistic trait. He actually advises journalists to “assume” that Administration positions are lies.

The implicit corollary is that journalists should “assume” that Administration critics are telling the truth. And indeed, the Froomkin Doctrine calls for suspension of skepticism when the source is an Administration opponent:

* Give voice to the skeptics; don’t marginalize and mock them.

There’s nothing there about being skeptical of critics’ assertions, or demanding evidence from them, or speculating about their motives.

I’m all for skepticism, but this isn’t skepticism. This is anti-Administration bias, pure and simple, dressed up as skepticism.

It’s a good thing that the actual journalists working for the Washington Post aren’t following Froomkin’s prescriptions. Otherwise, they might throw all their skepticism out the window when taking information from Administration critics, like Carl Levin.

Yeah, it’s a good thing that they don’t do that! Because that could be embarrassing!

P.S. Froomkin is a liberal columnist. I figured you knew that, but in case you didn’t, there you go.

[wodinoneeye]

"you are probably better off assuming anything they tell you is a lie. * Demand proof for their every assertion"


If anything, this is obvious proof of bias if the same dimbulbs DO NOT likewise demand proof for everything that any Dem says ....

Its not that they are questioning what Bush and Republicans say but that conversely they accept all that the Democrat Apparatchiks and foreign enemies spew as gospel....


Dishonesty, thy name is Libtard Mass Media.

[avacado]

Now why does it not surprise me that Dan Froomkin, the liberal, looks like his mother still does his laundry? He should just come on out of that closet and save his parents from all the snippy rumors!

Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post

[Garvin]

"* Don’t assume anything administration officials tell you is true. In fact, you are probably better off assuming anything they tell you is a lie.

* Demand proof for their every assertion. Assume the proof is a lie. Demand that they prove that their proof is accurate.

* Just because they say it, doesn’t mean it should be make the headlines [sic] . . . ."

I'm sure Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post is talking about any party that's in office. /Sarc Off

[motherof 3]

He's crazy.

[airedale]

Just remember when you read his stuff what the Washington Post ombudsman had to say about people who criticized another WashingtonPost.com columnist: First that first Froomkin works for WashingtonPost.com not the Washington Post so it's not really the same thing; same ownership but different editors and management, us poor slobs who aren't journalists is "lost" on us. Even though he works for the Washington Post as a whole he's not held to the same standard that the "real" Washington Post journalists and columnists are. He's special. I thought about pointing this column out to Deborah Howell as another example of bias at the WashingtonPost.com but who needs another condescending column like the one she wrote on Arkin.

Problem is that his attitudes expressed in this column when it comes to Republicans and especially the Bush administration permeate the MSM. When it comes to covering the Democrats however, different rules apply. They are to be given every benefit of the doubt, their talking points are to be accepted and parroted without critical thinking and become the mantra for the paper no matter how outlandish or inconsistent with prior positions or statements.