Take a look at the print edition of today’s Washington Post and see if it looks biased to you. It does to me.
Here are the articles on the front page:
To the WaPo, what’s important and newsworthy is that the election is “disputed,” not that Afghanistan held its first democratic election ever, with millions of people lining up to vote despite terrorist threats, etc.
For Marines, A Frustrating Fight
You can’t tell by looking at the online print edition, but the hard copy has a picture of a marine with the caption stating that he “says he sees little connection between Sept. 11 and the war in Iraq.”
Narrowly Defined Image Belies Jurist’s Quiet Clout
About Justice Clarence Thomas
Bush, Kerry Return to Trail And Take Different Tacks
Behind the Scenes, Officials Wrestle Over Voting Rules
A Taste of Distant Home For D.C. Area Nannies
Computer Users Face New Scourge
Now, after noting that WaPo found room on the front page of the Sunday edition for articles about nannies, voting rules, and a computer virus, note what’s not here: any mention of Prime Minister Howard’s resounding re-election victory in Australia.
Well, one might ask, why should it be on the front page? Australia is only our most important in Iraq after Great Britain, and Howard’s opponent did make withdrawing from Iraq a hallmark of his campaign. And besides, the Post didn’t ignore this story. It’s right there, in plain sight on page A34, for anyone who happens to be interested.
Again, as I asked yesterday, do you think that John Kerry, who claims to want allies in Iraq, is pleased by this victory? Could the Post’s disappointment have affected its placement on p. 34?
John Howard can be reached by e-mail at
http://www.pm.gov.au/email.cfm
There is probably some value in letting our allies know that, regardless of political party, we are not all like Kerry and the presumptive first sister.
I imagine he would like to know that many Americans support what he and the Ozzies are doing.
Question about the Post coverage:
Where did they place their storie(s) on the last Spanish elections? Not A34, I would wager.
Observations from Discriminations
John at Discriminations points out that we are repeating history in Washington with the Bush-Kerry election, turning our notice to the Lincoln-McClellan election of 1864. He also points out, as ever, that the Washington Post only has one bias: Against.
I, too, would like to know how the results of the Spanish election were reported. That’s an excellent, almost precisely parallel question to see if there’s bias.
Another trio of items to consider:
Internet rumors of Kerry cheating in the first debate were ignored. Speculation that Bush was wired and fed answers during the second debate was carried in the NYT.
A few weeks ago Bush was roundly criticized for comments that we could not win the WOT, despite the context that he was referring to a specific end such as a treaty or surrender. Critics suggested this was defeatism.
A few days ago Kerry implied we cannot defeat terrorism but media comment focused on deflecting the conclusion that he was implying we “need to learn to live with it”.
ABC’s chief political correspondent writes a memo detailing that Kerry is to be forgiven his distortions “because they aren’t central to his campaign”, while Bush needs to be pounced on.
I wonder how much of this results from the leftist arrogance that Americans are stupid? In some cases this might make journalists believe they can get away with blatant electioneering, and in others they feel the public cannot be trusted with all the facts lest they reach the “wrong” conclusion. Maybe both of these work in tandem.
http://www.bestlowmortgagerates.com
http://mortgage-calculator.bestlowmortgagerates.com
Mortgage Calculator
Florida Mortgage
Interesting, I also would recommend you http://spidesk.ru
Interesting, I would recommend you this