Obnoxious. Distorted. False. Intentional.
The Washington Post At Work
By Erick Posted in Congress — Comments (19) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Were it not so obnoxiously partisan, Jonathan Weisman's article on Republican Senators blocking ethics legislation would be laughable.
Weisman goes out of his way to make the case that Democrats are trying to pass "bipartisan" ethics legislation, but are being stopped by Republicans who want a vote on "an unrelated measure" to give President Bush line-item-veto powers over earmarks.
The article is total crap because it fails to accurately point out that Republicans did not halt the legislation, but demanded further debate time to offer more amendments to further tighten the law. The article is total crap because it fails to discuss Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Robert Byrd's efforts to block tougher ethics restricts. The article is total crap because it fails to mention how these three rushed to shut down debate before the GOP could offer even more amendments to tighten the law on ethics and earmarks.
The GOP is fighting to tighten laws on earmarks, lobbyists, and ethics. The Democrats are using procedural measures to stop them because when the GOP efforts get to the floor, they are winning. Nonetheless, the Washington Post can't help but blame the GOP.
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | Big Daddy Strikes Again — Comments (8) »
Obnoxious. Distorted. False. Intentional. 19 Comments (0 topical, 19 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Yeah, but if we were still in power we'd have USEFUL things to fight for.
Run like Reagan!
Gaius over at Blue Crab Boulevard Cuts through the crap and exposes the blatant partisan spin of the Post’s report and points out the so called "unrelated item" is not unrelated at all:
It is not a "line item veto" nor is it an "unrelated measure." Jonathan Weisman presumably has been reporting politics long enough to know that. The amendment would allow pork barrel items to be stripped out of unrelated legislation and sent back to Congress for an up or down, on the record vote. It is very much tied to ethics reform. The vote that failed last night was a vote on cloture. Harry Reid tried to cut off debate and eliminate an on the record vote for the amendment.
This is blatant political spin and is really beneath the Washington Post. Harry Reid needs to allow a simple up or down vote on the amendment. Everyone should be able to get behind a measure that would cut the pork barrel spending that is so often a political payback to lobbyists. This should not be a partisan issue. It is instructive to look at who actually derailed the bill:
This is blatant political spin and is really beneath the Washington Post.
Has Gaius been in a coma for the past ... thirty or so years?
We know, thanks to the information from the left, that the corporate media are a reliable voice for right wing interests.
And we see here that the corporate media are once again telling lies to advance the interests of the Democratic Party.
Ergo, the Democratic Party are the party of right wing corporate interests.
Power to the people! Vote GOP!
Are the media themselves. What is even more amazing is that a group of people nominally charged with gathering information about the world should be so utterly incapable of gathering the simplest of facts about themselves.
While its nice to commiserate about the bias and unfairness of the media. They are doing damage and we are not being heard. They are going to keep doing damage and denying until they are no longer able to do either. The question is really when and how can they be stopped.
P.S. Media is plural to begin with why should it be necessary to add the s when referring to elements of it ? Also isn't multi media inherently redundant ?
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
Weisman is a left winger. Period. And that's fine. He has that right and the Post has the right to have him on staff and publish his biased articles.
Perhaps, in the spirit of transparency on earmarks, etc we should start a movement to ask all leading journalists who they voted for for President and post the results here on RedState. Or who they voted for at the state or local level. If they won't answer, that's fine, then we just harass the hell out of them until they answer. We have a "right to know" their political leanings because they are writing on politics, and yes their personal beliefs matter. In the spirit of full disclosure we think they should be honorable enough to tell us.
If nothing else it will be fun, fun, fun to watch them squirm. We could easily get Congressmen in on the act. When a journalist is giving them a particular grilling (or not), "Excuse me, it is my understanding that you have not been forthcoming when asked a very simple question about your voting habits. Will you take the one-question RedState survey?"
The press wants total access and transparency for every tiny slice of American life, except their own. Bloggers should demand it right back and hammer them on their personal politics. I've never heard of a blogger who is shy about sharing his/her voting habits. So what's up with the MSM?
That's something I'm a real big advocate of.
According to every major newspaper's editorial board, "diversity" is important because a person's racial, ethnic and sexual background would always influence his/her reporting and thus enrich us all with their unique perspectives on the issues.
However, a reporter's political beliefs would never ever influence his reporting on the nation's politics.
Yeah ... right.
Bias? Absolutely.
I've seen years of example of the media giving its perceived customer base what it wants. The NYTimes quite correctly believes its readers are Liberals and very wisely gives them what they want.
My local paper, in a district which votes 60+% Republican, has only recently offered commentary questioning President Bush's leadership. This change, in my opinion, reflects a change in the market. The public has questions. Even previously loyal supporters of our president have questions.
Then the reason that 90% of the media are liberal is that 90% of Americans are liberal. Makes sense.
and representative of those of us who believe in market forces at work.
NO, it's not 90%! But do you really think a media company chooses anything other than "pandering" to its customers. Like it or not, it's the market at work.
It's comical how everyone feels victimized by the media. On the Liberal blogs you'll see all the wailing over the unjust RightWing Media.
How BushCo was behind 911. How BushCo controls oil prices. How the VRWC killed Wellstone. How the elections were stolen by the evil Rethuglicans. (Except the last one for some reason) They believe a lot of things over there. A cargo cult worshipping tribe of bushmen are a gang of cold-eyed skeptics by comparision with our friends across the aisle.
When I hear this from the D side, I'm reminded of the football team blaming the kicker for missing the last second field goal attempt, while never asking,
"Why were we only ahead by 2 points at the end of the game?"
NO, it's not 90%!
You are probably right. The Flyoverville Daily Mail and other assorted local newspapers may have 1.2 or maybe even two Republicans for every one Democrat on its staff and thereby lean Right.
So it's likely that if one tallies up the number of Right-leaning journalists and Left-leaning journalists and compares them, it is likely that the numbers are on the same plane.
Therefore the mainstream news media leans neither Left nor Right. Am I correct?
The business of business, including media business, is to nurture a strong relationship with its customers which is best done by MIRRORING THE TASTES AND OPINIONS OF THE CUSTOMER.
You and I, as media customers, will tolerate and perhaps enjoy a certain amount of "challenge" to our closely-held beliefs. But push us too far AND WE TUNE OUT!
And NOW, we have customized media: "All The News with YOUR Slant!" could be the slogan of much of our new media, THE BLOGS.
Expect more bias as what used-to-be called "the MSM" becomes even more in tune with target marketting.
by giving their readers what they want to hear AND ARE LIKELY TO BELIEVE.
"The GOP is fighting to tighten laws on earmarks, lobbyists, and ethics"
Hah...some members of the GOP are. Would have been easier to "fight" when we were the majority.