WaPo ombud: Say, there aren’t many conservatives in our “news” section, huh?

posted at 2:31 pm on September 29, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Distrust of the national news media continues to grow, pollsters such as Gallup and Pew report, and yet we don’t see too much introspection on the part of these media outlets.  New York Times public editor Arthur Brisbane concluded that the newspaper suffered from institutional bias to the point where it has become a “progressive hive mind,” but he made that observation on his way out the door of the Gray Lady, which rejected Brisbane’s criticisms while more or less proving him correct.  It’s not often that a voice from the inside points out the obvious — as Washington Post ombudsman Patrick Pexton did yesterday, simply by doing the math:

One aspect of The Post that particularly irks conservatives is the columnists who appear in print and online in news positions (as opposed to those on the editorial and op-ed pages and the online Opinions section). With the exception of Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza, who cover politics in a nonpartisan way, the news columnists almost to a person write from left of center.

Ezra Klein of Wonkblog comes out of the Democratic left, fills in for Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz on MSNBC and sometimes appears in the printed Post on the front page.

Steven Pearlstein, who covers business and also appears occasionally on the front page; Walter Pincus on national security; Lisa Miller of the On Faith blog; Melinda Henneberger of She the People; Valerie Strauss, the education blogger; plus the three main local columnists — Robert McCartneyPetula Dvorak and Courtland Milloy — all generally write from a progressive perspective, readers say. (So does Dana Milbank, who works for the Opinions section but writes a column that appears on Page A2 twice a week.)

Is it any wonder that if you’re a conservative looking for unbiased news — and they do; they don’t want only Sean Hannity’s interpretation of the news — that you might feel unwelcome, or dissed or slighted, by the printed Post or the online version? And might you distrust the news when it’s wrapped in so much liberal commentary?

Well, yeah, although I’d argue that the online impact is probably less than in the printed version.  Everyone knows that Milbank writes point-of-view work, and I’m not sure that the online access gives the impression that it’s news rather than opinion. Klein is clearly a partisan, especially with his work on MSNBC.  However, the rest of the lineup shows how that progressive hive mind forms; most readers probably don’t know about the ideological pitch each of these gives their work in the “news” sections.

That’s not to say that they don’t do fine work.  But why not include some conservative writers in those slots?  The Post has Jennifer Rubin, who turns out a fairly prodigious amount of work in their blog on the conservative perspective, but how often does Rubin write “news” stories for the Post on politics? [See update below.]  I’ve seen Jennifer cover CPAC and other events, so it’s not a case of being locked up in an office 24/7.  Why not hire a Byron York or a Philip Klein, a Robert Costa or an Erika Johnsen for some front-page and news features?

This is exactly what Brisbane meant by creating a “progressive hive mind,” and Maurice Brauchli gives the Jill Abramson response right on cue:

Marcus Brauchli, The Post’s executive editor, said conservative readers may perceive that recent coverage of Romney is too tough because they’ve missed a lot of the coverage of Obama in the past four years. “We’ve been covering Barack Obama aggressively for years,” Brauchli said. “We’ve only been covering Mitt Romney deeply since he became the Republican nominee. We cover politics in an even-handed way, and Dan Balz, Chris Cillizza, Karen Tumulty, Glenn Kessler and our other reporters do a terrific job of delivering the news without slant. Between the columnists on the editorial page and the commentators on the news pages, I believe The Post offers readers a balanced perspective.”

I’ll give the Post credit for being tougher on Obama than the New York Times and some of the other media — but that’s not Pexton’s point.  Pexton is talking specifically about the news pages, and the lack of “balanced perspective” where readers expect it most. Perhaps the Post has been tougher than some, but are they being tough enough?  Are they capturing all of the stories about this administration, or is their choked perspective blinding them to stories and angles on stories that leave their readership ill-served, and angry about the reasonable perception of bias in their reporting?

Give Pexton credit for pointing out the obvious and doing the math.  The fact that Brauchli either can’t or won’t do the math himself tells me that the media should prepare itself for even further erosion in public trust.

Update: As it turns out, Jennifer writes quite a bit for the news sections — but in the Post’s online format, it’s not easy to determine which story is published in which section.  This is what I was referring to in the post above, which is that the perspective of the writers named by Pexton is probably a lot more clear on line than in print.  My apologies to Jennifer, as the last thing I intended was to slight her.  She does terrific work, and I’m glad much of it appears in the news section.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

In other news, sky blue; water wet.

Purple Fury on September 29, 2012 at 2:34 PM

WaPo ombud: Say, there aren’t many conservatives in our “news” section, huh?

NY Times Seconds with a “Harrumph”

:P

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on September 29, 2012 at 2:36 PM

I nominate Mark Levin and I bet he’d do it for free.

perroviejo on September 29, 2012 at 2:36 PM

But why not include some conservative writers in those slots?

Why aren’t we smart enough to initiate some discrimination lawsuits?

It would be easy enough to do this.

faraway on September 29, 2012 at 2:37 PM

ALINSKY RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

faraway on September 29, 2012 at 2:38 PM

My limited and informal training in journalism is to report a story, not try to become a part of it. the modern MSM see themselves as players to the action–an influence–not as observers.

And the bulk of them are liberals.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 2:38 PM

> With the exception of Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza, who cover politics in a nonpartisan way

What planet is this moron from. Chris Cillizza contributes to MSNBC all day long. He’s a left wing nut.

rubberneck on September 29, 2012 at 2:39 PM

This guy has as much weight in making changes at the Washington Post as the janitor.

albill on September 29, 2012 at 2:39 PM

The Times and the Post are pure left wing propaganda rags and most of us know the bias on their printed pages and simply don’t read them. Furthermore, no amount of self review or criticism by these rags will change them.

rplat on September 29, 2012 at 2:42 PM

WaPo ombud: Say, there aren’t many conservatives in our “news” section, huh?

WaPo and HotAir [post-Malkin] kinda sorta have something in common.

Huh — imagine that.

FlatFoot on September 29, 2012 at 2:46 PM

I avoid the WaPo due to its overt bias and propaganda. News should be reported objectively. Those who say it can’t be done are full of manure. Yes, it is hard to just report the facts, but not impossible. One must desire to be a journalist not an evangelist.

And the bulk of them are liberals.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Yes. It’s not just the writers. Editors and proofreaders are responsible for validating content. Real journalists self edit and avoid injecting opinion or slant into their work and take pride in that.

dogsoldier on September 29, 2012 at 2:46 PM

I hate when they hire people for a “conservative slot” who are not conservatives at all, e.g.:

Dave Weigel
David Brooks
Peggy Noonan

Blake on September 29, 2012 at 2:49 PM

This problem of the media carrying water for the administration in power will end immediately upon Romney’s inauguration.

JimLennon on September 29, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Yet, WaPo, for odd reasons reported this, which hardly anyone else did.

Schadenfreude on September 29, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Lol! The Washington Compost’s editor, Mr.Brauchli, doesn’t know the difference between “covering” Obama and the “Covering Up For” Obama their rag has been doing for the last 5 yrs. What a clown. You see it’s this, in your face, believe me and not your lying eyes, childishness, that these idiots refuse to understand, loses them any credibility they might of had, with rational, logical people who read other site’s news! This is also why they act so confused when someone like Newt, slaps them around for their inane questions. This is why I keep telling people & politicians alike, they have to go after these clowns or they will find a way to sink you! Here’s a simple formula for taking on the Enemy media: http://paratisiusa.blogspot.com/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-those-who-should-know.html?spref=tw

God Bless America!

paratisi on September 29, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Journalist’s Creed

I believe in the profession of journalism.

I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of their responsibility, trustees for the public; that acceptance of a lesser service than the public service is betrayal of this trust.

I believe that clear thinking and clear statement, accuracy and fairness are fundamental to good journalism.

I believe that a journalist should write only what he holds in his heart to be true.

I believe that suppression of the news, for any consideration other than the welfare of society, is indefensible.

I believe that no one should write as a journalist what he would not say as a gentleman; that bribery by one’s own pocketbook is as much to be avoided as bribery by the pocketbook of another; that individual responsibility may not be escaped by pleading another’s instructions or another’s dividends.

I believe that advertising, news and editorial columns should alike serve the best interests of readers; that a single standard of helpful truth and cleanness should prevail for all; that the supreme test of good journalism is the measure of its public service.

I believe that the journalism which succeeds best — and best deserves success — fears God and honors Man; is stoutly independent, unmoved by pride of opinion or greed of power, constructive, tolerant but never careless, self-controlled, patient, always respectful of its readers but always unafraid, is quickly indignant at injustice; is unswayed by the appeal of privilege or the clamor of the mob; seeks to give every man a chance and, as far as law and honest wage and recognition of human brotherhood can make it so, an equal chance; is profoundly patriotic while sincerely promoting international good will and cementing world-comradeship; is a journalism of humanity, of and for today’s world.

Schadenfreude on September 29, 2012 at 2:54 PM

There goes one of them.

Schadenfreude on September 29, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Has anyone paged Claude Rains yet?

kim roy on September 29, 2012 at 2:58 PM

I’ve found the Post to be the best – or least bad – major news organization when it comes to liberal slant. Sure it’s still there in what they choose to cover.

As the saying goes, the bias in the press is not that they tell you want to think; the bias is in that they tell you want to think about. Or not think about. For example, they haven’t wanted us to think much about the Benghazi attack and the White House coverup and lies. But the Post deserves credit – albeit two weeks late – on that Kessler fact check piece.

In any case, I’m less concerned with the liberal columnists on the news pagers as I am with the liberal judgment in the editorial office.

SteveMG on September 29, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Marcus Brauchli, The Post’s executive editor, said conservative readers may perceive that recent coverage of Romney is too tough because they’ve missed a lot of the coverage of Obama in the past four years. “We’ve been covering Barack Obama aggressively for years,” Brauchli said. “We’ve only been covering Mitt Romney deeply since he became the Republican nominee. We cover politics in an even-handed way, and Dan Balz, Chris Cillizza, Karen Tumulty, Glenn Kessler and our other reporters do a terrific job of delivering the news without slant. Between the columnists on the editorial page and the commentators on the news pages, I believe The Post offers readers a balanced perspective.”

Goebbels had another orgasm in his grave.

Schadenfreude on September 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM

I’ll give the Post credit for being tougher on Obama than the New York Times and some of the other media

Yes, sometimes they let it be known that they may not be fully comfortable performing their daily BJ.

spiritof61 on September 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Conservatives MUST begin a stealth TAKEOVER of Academia, media and the eduction system.

The lady bragging about her Obamaphone in Ohio is a result of GENERATIONAL Progressive control over the government and those three areas listed above.

And true CONSERVATIVES must also takeover or create a NEW PARTY to help America have a INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY and FREEDOM alternative to the Dems.

Until that happens we will continue to beat our heads against this wall of Frustration every election cycle.

After decades of nominating Republican clothed Democrats in the gop we have been left fighting for just 6 or 8 states and no one is even trying to win other states. Except in 2016 when the Dems may very well capture Texas and seal the permanent majority for the Dems.

WE must change!!!

PappyD61 on September 29, 2012 at 3:02 PM

“education”

:-))

PappyD61 on September 29, 2012 at 3:02 PM

PappyD61 on September 29, 2012 at 3:02 PM

It took a full generation for liberals/leftists to gain effective control of all public institutions in this country; it will take another to remove them from their entrenched positions.

spiritof61 on September 29, 2012 at 3:04 PM

It took a full generation for liberals/leftists to gain effective control of all public institutions in this country; it will take another to remove them from their entrenched positions.

spiritof61 on September 29, 2012 at 3:04 PM

It took 2 generations and now they have tenure to protect them from losing their positions.

Rio Linda Refugee on September 29, 2012 at 3:07 PM

ALINSKY RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

faraway

Yes, and in particular, the left’s favored program of affirmative action uses the guilty-until-proven-innocent rule.

Under EEOC standards, a company or group that has a disparity in its racial makeup is automatically guilty of discrimination. If news organizations were held to that standard regarding the ideological makeup of their corporations, they would be found to be the single greatest source of discrimination outside the academy.

chimney sweep on September 29, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Let me make the obligatory “No blank, Sherlock!” comment to WaPo’s ombudsman. Not just what, but when was your first clue?

stukinIL4now on September 29, 2012 at 3:14 PM

And might you distrust the news when it’s wrapped in so much liberal commentary?

Yeah, pretty much. To the point that since it’s wrapped in so much liberal commentary its sole utilitarian purpose is to serve as fish wrap.

AZfederalist on September 29, 2012 at 3:14 PM

And true CONSERVATIVES must also takeover or create a NEW PARTY to help America have a INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY and FREEDOM alternative to the Dems.

PappyD61 on September 29, 2012 at 3:02 PM

This. And it needs to start November 7, not in September 2015.

AZfederalist on September 29, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Yes. It’s not just the writers. Editors and proofreaders are responsible for validating content. Real journalists self edit and avoid injecting opinion or slant into their work and take pride in that.

dogsoldier on September 29, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Gone are the days when journalism is a respected and respectable profession. There are no more reporters who put in long tiring hours chasing down a story, sometimes without being on the time clock.

It was a tough job for those people, who did the work for sake of their passion of wanting to get a story and write about it. Nowadays, it seems all about personal fame, a possible Pulitzer, and making sure their chosen candidate wins an office.

Liberals simply ruin every enterprise in which they engage.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Smacking Obama around for not being liberal enough is not “balancing” your reporting.

MunDane68 on September 29, 2012 at 3:22 PM

I nominate Mark Levin and I bet he’d do it for free.

perroviejo on September 29, 2012 at 2:36 PM

…we could open a wall cleaning company and be rich from all the heads that would explode!

KOOLAID2 on September 29, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Marcus Brauchli, The Post’s executive editor, said conservative readers may perceive that recent coverage of Romney is too tough because they’ve missed a lot of the coverage of Obama in the past four years. “We’ve been covering Barack Obama aggressively for years,” Brauchli said. “We’ve only been covering Mitt Romney deeply since he became the Republican nominee.

Really? You were able to say that with a straight face? Mr. Brauchli, do you think those of us who are conservative are stupid? You seem to think that we all just fell off the turnip truck and started reading your fishwrap rag after the GOP convention. You seem to think we have the same lack of memory as your liberal readers who can’t remember past last week and sometimes not even that long. You see, we’ve been watching and reading your coverage of Obama from 2006 to present. We’ve seen the adoring love you have shown to him. I think what you really meant to say instead of “We’ve been covering Barack Obama aggressively for years” was “We’ve been covering for Barack Obama for years”. Because you see, that’s what the news reporting from your paper appears to be doing. … and that last statement, “We’ve only been covering Mitt Romney deeply since he became the Republican nominee.” would be more accurately stated, “We’ve only been trying to bury Mitt Romney deeply since he became the Republican nominee. Before that, we were doing our best to make sure he was the Republican nominee”

One set of parting comments here. If you were “aggressively covering Obama”, where was the aggressive non-stop reporting such as you would have done for the Bush administration on stories such as: 1) The New Black Panther voter intimidation case and Eric Holder’s decision not to prosecute an open and shut case, 2) Aggressive, non-stop reporting on Fast and Furious, 3) Tim Geitner’s inability to understand TurboTax, 4) the daily casualty count from Afghanistan, and 5) the backroom deals and broken promises for transparency when ObamaCare was rammed through Congress.

See, I think you mistake “aggressively covering” with “endless adoration”. Now, to be fair, you did commit a few random acts of journalism over the past four years, but that pales in comparison with your non-stop promotion of Barack Obama and his marxist regime.

Forgive us for not really trusting you.

AZfederalist on September 29, 2012 at 3:29 PM

You can almost see Brauchli patting the ombudsman on the head and hear him saying, sure, sure little ombudsman, go on back to your little broom closet of an office and we will carry on.

d1carter on September 29, 2012 at 3:29 PM

In other news, the MSM has discovered that WATER IS WET!

GarandFan on September 29, 2012 at 3:32 PM

You can almost see Brauchli patting the ombudsman on the head and hear him saying, sure, sure little ombudsman, go on back to your little broom closet of an office and we will carry on.

d1carter on September 29, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Actually, I think it would be more along the lines of a hearty handshake and pat on the back, “Great job! That will keep the rubes off our case for little while now. We should be able to get through the election and into the second term with enough credibility to see the glorious revolution to completion! Excellent work comrade!”

AZfederalist on September 29, 2012 at 3:34 PM

“We’ve been covering Barack Obama aggressively for years,”

100% unadulatrated BS.

The correct statement is.
We’ve been covering up for Barack Obama for years,”

Steveangell on September 29, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Terrorism works, at least it does with cowards. Set off one bomb at the NY Times or the WaPo, or the LA Times, then make a phone call that the bomb was in response to people being fed up with the MSM acting as a propaganda arm of the Democrat party, and watch things change real quickly.

Modern day Liberalism is all about pampered, upper middle class White people who want to feel like they’re cutting edge, and part of some sort of “good vs. evil” struggle. But all they really care about is their creature comforts. They’ll sell out their ideals in a second if they think that they might not live long enough to enjoy all the aging wine in their cellars.

ardenenoch on September 29, 2012 at 3:36 PM

ardenenoch on September 29, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Interesting observation, and quite on-spot.

What I find is that the staunchest liberals are living life with no effort on their part, or they’re mega-rich.

Good call there.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 3:44 PM

What I find is that the staunchest liberals are living life with no effort on their part, or they’re mega-rich.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 3:44 PM

… and they are bound and determined to make sure nobody else can achieve that same level of success. They’ve got theirs, the rest of us, keep toiling away, you aren’t going to get here.

AZfederalist on September 29, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Ezra Klein should HANG for his Journo-List malfeasance. As well as every rotten ethic-less “journalist” that participates in that fraud, whatever it is called today. ‘Cabalist’ last I read.

rayra on September 29, 2012 at 3:50 PM

ardenenoch on September 29, 2012 at 3:36 PM

That would backfire. It would back up all their fear mongering about conservatives. Great thought, evil method, but I am certain that conservatives (read weak progressives republicans)would be so appalled that the progressives might be allowed to pass some new restrictions on our freedom.

astonerii on September 29, 2012 at 3:51 PM

WaPo and HotAir [post-Malkin] kinda sorta have something in common.

Huh — imagine that.

FlatFoot on September 29, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Hah. So true.

rayra on September 29, 2012 at 3:52 PM

It’s so true, we had to go create a place of our own -
http://www.grouchyconservativepundits.org/

rayra on September 29, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Marcus Brauchli, The Post’s executive editor, said conservative readers may perceive that recent coverage of Romney is too tough because they’ve missed a lot of the coverage of Obama in the past four years. “We’ve been covering Barack Obama aggressively for years,” Brauchli said.

Sure! For the past several years they have heavily covered obama in a positive way. In the last few months, to make up for the heavy obama coverage, they have heavily covered Romney, in a negative way.

Old Country Boy on September 29, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Years ago I discovered when reading a news story in the Boston Globe that the slant is hidden in the modifiers. In other words, if I read a story ignoring the adjectives and adverbs the writer inserted, I could read a fairly straight account of the story and use my own judgement as to the merit of the subject story.

That’s where the slant happens, in the modifiers.

FOWG1 on September 29, 2012 at 3:55 PM

… and they are bound and determined to make sure nobody else can achieve that same level of success. They’ve got theirs, the rest of us, keep toiling away, you aren’t going to get here.

AZfederalist on September 29, 2012 at 3:49 PM

You are so right, as usual.

There is song out there called “I Got Mine”. I can’t say where the aim is intended, but it describes limousine liberals to a tee.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Leftward slant?

Shocked I say!

Tim_CA on September 29, 2012 at 3:57 PM

What I find is that the staunchest liberals are living life with no effort on their part, or they’re mega-rich.
Liam on September 29, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Idle welfare addicts, unproductive “civil” “service” “workers,” and the filthy rich….

Liberals all have one factor in common, but income level ain’t it.

logis on September 29, 2012 at 4:02 PM

WaPo ombud: Say, there aren’t many conservatives in our “news” section, huh?

It’s a taunt.

As in, there should be a “d’oh” at the end of that statement. And a few smiley faces. All from the Ombudsman, not from the reader.

Lourdes on September 29, 2012 at 4:04 PM

I guess Pat Cadell’s rant at accuracy in media just fell on deaf ears.

http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/pat-caddell-says-media-have-become-enemy-of-the-american-people/

IlikedAUH2O on September 29, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Having worked at newspapers for nearly 25 years, I assure you Mr. Brauchli believes what he said. It’s total BS, but he does believe it. During my years in a newspaper, there were conservative reporters and even a few lower editors, however they kept “in the closet”. I knew them because as the paper’s editorial cartoonist, everybody knew where I stood on just about everything, so they weren’t afraid to approach me. But they were very concerned with their job assignments and even security if they ever spoke up about something.
You see, newsrooms were one of the loudest voices in promoting “diversity”, as long as it wasn’t ideologically diverse. Because of that, what is news to a conservative may not be to a progressive. Questions a conservative would want answered never occur to a liberal. Bias influences what is or is not reported, what is or is not considered news.
My newsroom hated my guts and twice took up a $ collection to buy an ad in our own paper to condemn my political positions. Both times management shut stopped it. Conservative cartoonists from other papers often told me about similar garbage.

cartooner on September 29, 2012 at 4:05 PM

That’s where the slant happens, in the modifiers.

FOWG1 on September 29, 2012 at 3:55 PM

One of my English professors taught that the road to hell was paved with them.

Schadenfreude on September 29, 2012 at 2:54 PM

I like it.

“Truth” is somewhat subjective and philosophical. Facts, on the other hand, are objective.

dogsoldier on September 29, 2012 at 4:07 PM

What I find is that the staunchest liberals are living life with no effort on their part, or they’re mega-rich.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Understand the importance of social-rewards-processes as to amassing wealth and fame (either/or).

By “importance of” I don’t mean, that it’s great, wonderful, whatever. I refer only to the ACTIVITY and NECESSITY of “social rewards” as a process integral to “living life with no effort on their part” or amassing material goods and/or fame (fame usually also delivers ‘material goods’ gains so they are oftentimes if not almost always a mutual occurrence).

“Fame” reward systems or industries (media, entertainment, politics) also, then, deliver or “award” those selected by those systems, industries, with increased material gain.

And so, it is not accidental that those systems, industries, are largely controlled by Liberals, the Left — and they function as “gatekeepers” in our civilization to both bar the gate to those who are not Left and to reward those who are.

Lourdes on September 29, 2012 at 4:11 PM

WaPo ombud: Say, there aren’t many conservatives in our “news” section, huh?

WaPo and HotAir [post-Malkin] kinda sorta have something in common.

Huh — imagine that.

FlatFoot on September 29, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Indeed. I read HA less these days and find little reason to comment.

Cody1991 on September 29, 2012 at 4:12 PM

As to WAPO, it’s long been a bastion of both the Intelligence people/assets and the DNC. It’s not a secret.

Lourdes on September 29, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Facts, on the other hand, are objective.

dogsoldier on September 29, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Objectivity isn’t a consideration here. While you’re totally right, it’s more a matter of degree to the MSM.

It’s a fact that Obama is covering up a lot, and is a proven liar and cheat.

It’s also a fact that Mitt Romney once bullied a kid in high school.

Which is more important to the liberal media, and which will they mention first, foremost, and often?

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 4:15 PM

I haven’t subscribed to a physical paper since The Rocky Mountain News went under years ago. I get all the news online at least 2 days before I see it in print. And that was a number of years ago. Now that we have Twitter, even TV “breaking news” can’t keep up. I haven’t watched TV news in years either.

Common Sense on September 29, 2012 at 4:15 PM

My limited and informal training in journalism is to report a story, not try to become a part of it. the modern MSM see themselves as players to the action–an influence–not as observers.

And the bulk of them are liberals.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 2:38 PM

the modern MSM see themselves as players to the action–an influence–not as observers.

Quite right but so do some who define themselves as ‘conservatives.’

It’s the comingling of, or perhaps confusion of, entertainment with print and broadcast media. Audience numbers are the goal and increasingly media-reliant people today NEED to be entertained.

Thus, there’s increasing servicing of entertainment which, as fiction, runs contrary to journalism (or “reporting the story without the reporter making him/herself part of the story”).

It’s a challenge today to determine whether our human population is becoming more intelligent or less intelligent, what with their increasing reliance on media (evidence of this, headline on DRUDGE today that announces increasing phobia by people to be without a cellphone/device).

Lourdes on September 29, 2012 at 4:17 PM

You see, newsrooms were one of the loudest voices in promoting “diversity”, as long as it wasn’t ideologically diverse.

cartooner on September 29, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Bingo.

Because of that, what is news to a conservative may not be to a progressive. Questions a conservative would want answered never occur to a liberal. Bias influences what is or is not reported, what is or is not considered news.

cartooner on September 29, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Bingo two-times.

Lourdes on September 29, 2012 at 4:21 PM

“We’ve been covering up for Barack Obama for years,”

Steveangell on September 29, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Nah, the correct statement is “we’ve been eating Obama’s sh*t for years, mistaking it for Beluga caviar”.

May they all suffocate from it.

Schadenfreude on September 29, 2012 at 4:21 PM

What I find is that the staunchest liberals are living life with no effort on their part, or they’re mega-rich.

Good call there.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Many are “academics” as well.

By that I mean they are true converts to secularism or huminism taught in the schools. Most sosiologist fall into this groop though they do convert many who are in other disaplines.

Steveangell on September 29, 2012 at 4:23 PM

I guess Pat Cadell’s rant at accuracy in media just fell on deaf ears.

http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/pat-caddell-says-media-have-become-enemy-of-the-american-people/

IlikedAUH2O on September 29, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Yes, it did but wasn’t that a predictable silence by media as to the point Cadell made?

Pat Cadell makes too much sense to be the Democrat he says he is. I can’t ever quite connect the two, Cadell’s good and accurate insights with his claims he’s a Democrat.

Lourdes on September 29, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Lourdes on September 29, 2012 at 4:17 PM

I don’t see intelligence as a factor in all this. If you think about it, the ‘intellegensia’ are the biggest a-holes on the planet. They can ‘rationalize’ themselves into or out of anything.

What I see, on the other hand, is a diminishment of the very thing, inside us all, that makes us human.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Marcus Brauchli, The Post’s executive editor, said conservative readers may perceive that recent coverage of Romney is too tough because they’ve missed a lot of the coverage of Obama in the past four years. “We’ve been covering Barack Obama aggressively for years,” Brauchli said.

Preposterous abusive-usery of other people’s common sense and sanity.

“Covering Obama” has been limited to — if it can be called that as to the volume of ‘covering’ — fawning over a phantom presence with hypnotic monotony set to deceive and deluge the hapless readers and other media services who patronize them as source with absurdly polarized distortions rooted in vanity.

Lourdes on September 29, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Bias influences what is or is not reported, what is or is not considered news.

cartooner on September 29, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Yes this is why they cover up for Obama. They see Obama’s side clearly and it falls within their belief system. It is easy for them to believe that Obama while he may have done something stupid did it for a very good reason. Thus they report on the good reason and leave out or diminish the stupid act. Just the oposite for a Republican. They know a Republican never has a good reason for anything. Thus they glory in reporting the stupid act and diminish or do not report at all on the good reason.

Thus the report on Romney speaking too soon. But also the report of Obama’s story that it was just over a very old very short video. They can not fantom Romney had a good reason. Nor can they fantom that Obama is covering up for a failure. They do not even believe Obama can possibly fail.

Steveangell on September 29, 2012 at 4:29 PM

I’ll give the Post credit for being tougher on Obama than the New York Times and some of the other media — but that’s not Pexton’s point.

With all due respect, I disagree. I read both the print edition and the online versions of the WaPo daily. Though why I keep up my print version is oftentimes questionable were it not for the ability to do the crossword in the traditional way and the plastic sleeve is convenient for cleaning up after the dog’s business.

Here’s the thing. The bias is not just in the front section (where one day last week there were no fewer than 10 hit pieces on Mitt Romney). The style section repeatedly has hit pieces on Romney while they continue the myth that Michelle Obama is something other than an angry black racist woman by featuring her food-oriented agenda. Today’s Metro section highlights the LDS church Romney would attend in DC and how much the Mormons there support Obama and hate Romney. Today’s Real Estate section has a large article on how Obama “saved” housing from its free-fall. None of this is objective or reasonable !!!

And it all as subtle as when Robin Givens did an attack piece on John Roberts in the Style section by making the comment that his kids dressed “too white” or defended the very unflattering picture of Michelle Obama getting off Air Force One in shorts that should only be worn by somebody without her ample backside by suggesting such sloppiness was Michelle carving out a new fashion path.

Happy Nomad on September 29, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Many are “academics” as well.

By that I mean they are true converts to secularism or huminism taught in the schools. Most sosiologist fall into this groop though they do convert many who are in other disaplines.

Steveangell on September 29, 2012 at 4:23 PM

What I see is that, the more we rely on those ‘academics’, the less we remain the best we could be.

I’m a Bible-thumping Christian. We were created only a little lower than God’s angels, but can become even above them.

What I truly believe is that, if we follow liberal ideals, we lose what is meant to be our central core: self-awareness and a conscience to back it up–to maybe justify our own individual selves.

Liberals back the most horrid things, like setting free cop killers while trying also to make it a criminal offense to ‘slander’ Mohammed.

Academics?

They’re the biggest a-holes in all of history.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Lourdes on September 29, 2012 at 4:17 PM

I don’t see intelligence as a factor in all this. If you think about it, the ‘intellegensia’ are the biggest a-holes on the planet. They can ‘rationalize’ themselves into or out of anything.

What I see, on the other hand, is a diminishment of the very thing, inside us all, that makes us human.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 4:25 PM

I wasn’t referring to “the ‘intelligensia’” in my 4:17 PM comments but to, instead, the average individual within our population (and elsewhere — the average human being among our species on a more broad level while our nation’s population is particularly advantaged over others due to technology advantages that apply to nearly everyone here).

The average person has become reliant upon technology to a point that they are, as is being reported, “panic struck” when they’re without that technology. Which means, they’re reliant UNNATURALLY upon social media, almost certainly, as to their individual sense of self and particularly sense of being or welfare (welfare as state of existence not govt. handout).

That suggests to me that the average individual is becoming LESS intelligent. Allowing and later expecting (and “needing”) technology to merely establish a sense of survival (or of “feeling alright today” versus freaking out or being panic-struck, or, rather, “upset” to a point of feeling threatened as to one’s existence and/or safety — this is what’s described as being “unwell” emotionally and/or mentally) is a mark of decreased curiosity, decreased inventiveness, decreased individual motivation and, often, decreased intelligence.

I think there’s occuring a decrease in the average intelligence due to the increased reliance upon (or “need” for) technology of the current level. It might be a process — accommodate the increased reliance on technology first, deal with the intelligence level later) as to our species, but, whatever, I do think what’s taking place if not has taken place is a decrease in the average individual intelligence.

Lourdes on September 29, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Thus the report on Romney speaking too soon. But also the report of Obama’s story that it was just over a very old very short video. They can not fantom Romney had a good reason. Nor can they fantom that Obama is covering up for a failure. They do not even believe Obama can possibly fail.

Steveangell on September 29, 2012 at 4:29 PM

You have wonderful imputed motives and projected virtues.

Have you seen the Pat Cadell Clip?

He calls the media: “Enemy of the American People” he sees Washington, D C as I do. A film noir set.

Last time I shall cite it:

http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/pat-caddell-says-media-have-become-enemy-of-the-american-people/

And someone tell Pappy that they treat conservatives in the schools like sharks treat seals.

IlikedAUH2O on September 29, 2012 at 4:40 PM

“Covering Obama” has been limited to — if it can be called that as to the volume of ‘covering’ — fawning over a phantom presence with hypnotic monotony set to deceive and deluge the hapless readers and other media services who patronize them as source with absurdly polarized distortions rooted in vanity.

Lourdes on September 29, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Obama is a composite character for the “media.”

A little bit Muslim.
A little bit Trinity UCC.
A little bit commie.
With a little bit of satan in his soul.

Happy Nomad on September 29, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Liberals back the most horrid things, like setting free cop killers while trying also to make it a criminal offense to ‘slander’ Mohammed.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 4:33 PM

When in psychological infancy, we “like” and even “love” that or he/she whom delivers to us satiation of our wants. We make outrageous demands for satiation and we get results — it’s called screaming as a baby and an adult responding with food, safety and sustence for us.

That psychology is what is at play among most on the Left. They may have aged in years but they haven’t aged or matured to any point of independence — they also then discourage if not seek to destroy anyone who “threatens” their “me-baby-crying-for-what-you-owe-me-so-give-it-to-me-or-I’ll-keep yelling-and-shaking-my-arms-legs-at-you” state of existence.

The Left INDULGES people and not with much responsibility. It’s not responsible to continue to respond to “crying babies” when they’re over the age of infancy and later childhood. A keen aspect to growing up is learning to self-modulate one’s needs, wants and figuring out how to reward onesself and then to share that with others. The Left is still stuck in the “baby-wants” emotional stage ideologically.

Lourdes on September 29, 2012 at 4:43 PM

safety and sustence for us.

…safety and SUSTENANCE for us.

Lourdes on September 29, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Lourdes on September 29, 2012 at 4:36 PM

You won’t get any argument there from me, that’s for sure!

I can still do long division on paper and with a pencil. I never mastered the slide rule, but I doubt any teenager today knows what is a slide rule.

It’s really all very sad to me, Lourdes.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 4:44 PM

The old media are the enemies of the American people.

Schadenfreude on September 29, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Lourdes on September 29, 2012 at 4:43 PM

I’m in total agreement with you there, yet again.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 4:46 PM

What I see, on the other hand, is a diminishment of the very thing, inside us all, that makes us human.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Secular Huminism.

It is what Satan is using to fight against GOD most effectively right now.

It is a religion and has it’s true believers especially in inteligentia.

What makds us human it GOD.

Steveangell on September 29, 2012 at 4:49 PM

The [WAPO] bias is not just in the front section (where one day last week there were no fewer than 10 hit pieces on Mitt Romney). The style section repeatedly has hit pieces on Romney while they continue the myth that Michelle Obama is something other than an angry black racist woman by featuring her food-oriented agenda. Today’s Metro section highlights the LDS church Romney would attend in DC and how much the Mormons there support Obama and hate Romney. Today’s Real Estate section has a large article on how Obama “saved” housing from its free-fall. None of this is objective or reasonable !!!

And it all as subtle as when Robin Givens did an attack piece on John Roberts in the Style section by making the comment that his kids dressed “too white” or defended the very unflattering picture of Michelle Obama getting off Air Force One in shorts that should only be worn by somebody without her ample backside by suggesting such sloppiness was Michelle carving out a new fashion path.

Happy Nomad on September 29, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Yes, exactly right.

This particularly annoys me:

The style section repeatedly has hit pieces on Romney while they continue the myth that Michelle Obama is something other than an angry black racist woman by featuring her food-oriented agenda.

…and annoys me because that false message just offends nearly everyone’s common sense! People have eyes and ears, they can see and read, FEW people “admire” her nor, far more ridiculous, consider her “fabulous///beautiful…” yet the Leftmedia continues that awful drumming about her, as do mysteriously critical of anyone who suggests otherwise user accounts on the internet.

I get the impression there are Democrat PACs who have union members and other hapless people obligated to them to sit at terminals and mark-down anyone who doesn’t foam-with-insanity about Michelle Obama’s “fabulousness” or so much as questions the reality of such.

It’s a story-line that is unsupported by reality and thus, offends most people’s common sense (clearly, most can easily see it’s a false-front).

Lourdes on September 29, 2012 at 4:50 PM

What makds us human it GOD.

Steveangell on September 29, 2012 at 4:49 PM

I am in total agreement.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 4:52 PM

I can still do long division on paper and with a pencil. I never mastered the slide rule, but I doubt any teenager today knows what is a slide rule.

It’s really all very sad to me, Lourdes.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 4:44 PM

I loved my circular slide rule until I got my first calculator. It was so much more accurate.

Though they had just come out. Scientific ones. My teacher took some convincing that it actually worked.

Steveangell on September 29, 2012 at 4:52 PM

I never mastered the slide rule, but I doubt any teenager today knows what is a slide rule.

It’s really all very sad to me, Lourdes.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 4:44 PM

I still have my slide rule that I acquired in highschool (and had to learn to use then). I agree, few teens today know what it even is (but it’s still a handy tool and you don’t need batteries or the internet to use it).

Lourdes on September 29, 2012 at 4:53 PM

From The Onion.

Schadenfreude on September 29, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Steveangell on September 29, 2012 at 4:49 PM

I am in total agreement.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Man I hate autorefresh.

Always afraid of losing what I typed.

What makes man Human is GOD.

Steveangell on September 29, 2012 at 4:54 PM

What I see is that, the more we rely on those ‘academics’, the less we remain the best we could be….

They’re the biggest a-holes in all of history.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 4:33 PM

If you look at the current administration you’ll see a collection of academics and people who have never made any contribution to society. They’ve merely pointed out ways society needs to change to fit their liberal agenda. This of course includes the rat-eared bastard at the top of the Executive Branch of government.

When GWB took office, one of the things he did very well was surround himself and appoint people who were competent in their respective areas. Colin Powell was a political choice that was a mistake. John Ashcroft was too much of a political lightning rod. But in general, GWB set up a loyal and competent organization. Conversely, Obama has put politicians in charge of State, DHS, HHS, and Defense. People loyal only to him for patronage and not the best interests of the nation.

Happy Nomad on September 29, 2012 at 4:55 PM

I still have my slide rule that I acquired in highschool (and had to learn to use then). I agree, few teens today know what it even is (but it’s still a handy tool and you don’t need batteries or the internet to use it).

Lourdes on September 29, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Indeed and it can do far more than just multiplication and division.

Steveangell on September 29, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Must see

Schadenfreude on September 29, 2012 at 4:56 PM

I loved my circular slide rule until I got my first calculator. It was so much more accurate.

Though they had just come out. Scientific ones. My teacher took some convincing that it actually worked.

Steveangell on September 29, 2012 at 4:52 PM

You had a circular slide rule? I never saw one of those. Heck–I had a hard enough time trying to learn how to use a ‘normal’ one!

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 4:56 PM

From The Onion.

Schadenfreude on September 29, 2012 at 4:53 PM

“From The Onion,” hehe.

Lourdes on September 29, 2012 at 4:56 PM

I never mastered the slide rule, but I doubt any teenager today knows what is a slide rule.

It’s really all very sad to me, Lourdes.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 4:44 PM

The shocker to me was when I learned my third-grade neice could not tell time with an analog clock.

Happy Nomad on September 29, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Lourdes on September 29, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Indeed and it can do far more than just multiplication and division.

Steveangell on September 29, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Well, you have to understand Calculus beyond the Pythagorean Theorum level to use one.

Lourdes on September 29, 2012 at 4:58 PM

I loved my circular slide rule until I got my first calculator. It was so much more accurate.

Steveangell on September 29, 2012 at 4:52 PM

You had a circular slide rule? I never saw one of those. Heck–I had a hard enough time trying to learn how to use a ‘normal’ one!

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Okay, has to be said. Circular slide rule is an awesome name for a rock band. ;0

Happy Nomad on September 29, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Lourdes on September 29, 2012 at 4:53 PM

I had one teacher in high school…a certain Mr. Kaplan.

He was an oddball, I guess you could say. But this one time, I watched him work a slide rule with paper and pencil as a total expert, as if it was first-nature to the man.

I wish I listened to him better than I did back then.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 5:01 PM

I never mastered the slide rule, but I doubt any teenager today knows what is a slide rule.

It’s really all very sad to me, Lourdes.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 4:44 PM

The shocker to me was when I learned my third-grade neice could not tell time with an analog clock.

Happy Nomad on September 29, 2012 at 4:57 PM

No one learns The Law of Cosines from watching Glee or writing on Facebook.

Lourdes on September 29, 2012 at 5:02 PM

It’s a story-line that is unsupported by reality and thus, offends most people’s common sense (clearly, most can easily see it’s a false-front).

Lourdes on September 29, 2012 at 4:50 PM

She is masculine not femimine. Would not use the term Angry Black Woman. What is that exactly?

Her shoulders are far too broad. She is fat. She must wear plus sizes. Her face is not symetiric nor her body. She is at best 60% 40% of women are better looking.

Steveangell on September 29, 2012 at 5:03 PM

The shocker to me was when I learned my third-grade neice could not tell time with an analog clock.

Happy Nomad on September 29, 2012 at 4:57 PM

That has got to be scary as hell.

Right before my son started Kindergarten, I took paper, pencil, and pennies to teach him basic addition and subtraction. My daughter, who is 18 months younger, was there, too.

I guess I’m too old and seriously jaded for the 21st Century.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 5:04 PM

I never mastered the slide rule, but I doubt any teenager today knows what is a slide rule.

It’s really all very sad to me, Lourdes.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 4:44 PM

The shocker to me was when I learned my third-grade neice could not tell time with an analog clock.

Happy Nomad on September 29, 2012 at 4:57 PM

No one learns The Law of Cosines from watching Glee or writing on Facebook.

Lourdes on September 29, 2012 at 5:02 PM

My thirtysomething kids can not tell time with an analogue clock.

Steveangell on September 29, 2012 at 5:06 PM

No one learns The Law of Cosines from watching Glee or writing on Facebook.

Lourdes on September 29, 2012 at 5:02 PM

The only reason I passed HS geometry is because the teacher was in a good mood that day.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 5:08 PM

There is a reason that newspaper earnings are at 1950′s levels.

And that the Left is fighting on-line education.

Newspapers could have remained relevant if they had gone back to basics and actually had real local news that was important to people locally. They went national, instead, and short-shrifted beat reporting. Now it is non-inquisitive sycophants giving us ‘stories’ not facts. Just the facts, Ma’am… newspapers are killing themselves by wiping out the basics.

Our modern school system is modeled on a 13th century concept in which books were few, educators were rare, and where one-to-many made good sense. In an era of learning that can be self-paced and with so many people with knowledge on topics, the idea of a brick and mortar ‘school’ is becoming obsolete and can be replaced by dedicated parents who can work together in neighborhood learning situations that don’t require ‘teachers’ but people who know what they are talking about and vetted by the parents, not administrators. Home schooling is just about doing it at home, but working with like-minded parents and sharing responsibilities and resources while using the best of modern, 21st century technology and techniques to make sure learning goes beyond dates and names.

The Left touts credentials in newspapers and teachers.

The people want capability for their children and facts for themselves so they can decide if there is a ‘story’ behind the facts.

Time to get with the program: the 20th century needs to be buried along with all its swell, debt causing ideals and programs. Before we become its VICTIMS.

ajacksonian on September 29, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2