I’m honored…
that Patterico thinks my guest-blogging is better than the blog equivalent of a test pattern.
Motivated by the great job Patterico has been doing so capably with the LA Dog Trainer – trying to keep them honest and screaming when they’re not – I recently decided to give the same thing a try with my hometown paper, The Washington Post.
In my series, The Washington Post: Just as Biased, Just Not as Stupid”, I’ve been trying to show how the Post doesn’t resort to the same tactics as CBS has used (and, apparently once again. No, the Post does their part to deliver the election to Kerry the old fashioned way: selective use of quotes, the editors using their ‘impartial discretion’ in deciding which stories are worth coverage and which are not, which stories to put on the front page and which to bury inside. The Post also employs what I call the “No good Bush news goes unanswered”: any story that could, just could be seen to portray Bush in a positive light needs to be accompanied by a qualifier. Supposedly neutral ‘human interest’ stories are sure to include the obligatory dig against Bush in some way, such as in today’s article about a town not only suffering from unease over the ongoing war on terrorism but also from the effects of 670 area workers who lost their jobs when yet another factory shut its doors (ooh, the obligatory shot at the Bush economy).
Now, I know, as does Patterico when he looks at the LA Dog Trainer, that the Post editors and political reporters would jump up and down in righteous indignation that anyone, especially those of us who sit at home in our pajamas (actually, in my case, a pair of shorts and a T-shirt), would dare to criticize their work, dare to suggest that they are biased, dare to suggest that they would consider Bush’s re-election to be among the worst things that could happen to the country, dare to suggest that they are doing their best to keep that from happening. To which I respond: they should thank God that the Post has a decent sports page, a monopoly on classified ads in the metro area, the movie reviews and listings and the comics. Because we’re sure not spending 35 cents a day for your writing. There’s a reason why every week, when my daughter needs part of the paper to line the bird’s cage, I tell her to take the front page.
That’s all for now. Thanks for reading.
Nice!
arb (1d9c7d) — 9/30/2004 @ 9:38 amYou’re a narrow-minded scold, Steve. The WaPo is liberal; they’re all liberal. But there’s plenty legitimate, fact-based journalism being practiced at the Post. This has especially been true since 9/11.
George (f5188f) — 9/30/2004 @ 9:51 amThat strikes me as a rude and pointless comment. I will say that I think the Post is one of the better mainstream papers, and there’s plenty of good stuff to be found in its pages. But Steve seems to have specific criticisms, which sound valid. He has expressed other criticism on his blog before, and I suspect that more will be forthcoming here over the next few days.
Why not respond to that criticism, rather than insulting him?
Patterico (310e52) — 9/30/2004 @ 11:18 amPerhaps I should have said, “You’re acting like a narrow-minded scold, Steve.” Much better, eh?
Some bloggers seem a good deal better at dishing it out than taking it, imho.
George (f5188f) — 9/30/2004 @ 12:02 pmNow, now, I took no offense in what you said – it’s been said by people who know me much better. And, for what’s worth, I look forward to the day somebody decides I’m important enough to take shots at me (the literally kind, of course).
steve (e37e4c) — 9/30/2004 @ 12:11 pm