Washington Post: “Yeah, We Were Kinda Biased”

The Post’s Ombudsman admits that their election coverage left something to be desired:

[R]eaders have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.   .    .

Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin “Tony” Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama’s acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

Probably no big surprises there, right? It is amazing what a newspaper will do in  brazen attempts to drive up the profit margins. Oh wait.  .  .

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Washington Post: “Yeah, We Were Kinda Biased”

  1. Bias at the Post?NYT/LAT is certainly not helping the bottom line, that’s for sure; these papers are hemorrhaging cash.

  2. She may have a point, but gives weak examples. McCain may indeed have suffered more critical reporting. I suggest that’s because he waged a campaign worthy more criticism. Not only did those evil lefties at the WP take a dump on him. So did WP’s right leaning writers. The idea that this was unfair doesn’t really add up. It’s as if the left says crap stinks, the right says pretty much the same thing, and the ombudsman claims that in the interest of fairness, the WP should have had some stories about how crap does not, in fact, stink.

  3. Shecky,

    Thanks for the comments here. I agree that McCain’s campaign was pretty crappy and not very substantial. But the ombudsman of the post pointed out that the sheer number of articles run, and investigative pieces on McCain/Palin vs the Obama camp, was skewed.

    McCain had no true message on the economy or how he was going to govern. No issues there.

    But the level of scrutiny on “outside the campaign” type issues was alarmingly out of balance this election cycle, with the Democratic ticket faring much better than the Republicans.

    I think that you would have a hard time arguing that it was any different at the New York Times and LA Times.

    During the campaign (especially the latter part, following both conventions), the papers chronicled Cindy McCain’s past drug use, several dubious stories about Sarah Palin’s family members, McCain’s (weakly alleged) affair with a lobbyist, et al; did Obama get that kind of scrutiny on his family members, on his associations, and on past drug use? Not really, and not by any of these big three newspapers.

    Would the LA Times refuse to release a video that showed Sarah Palin at a dinner in honor of a controversial Middle Eastern figure days before the election? What do you think?

    It amazes me that these three Newspapers do this, really. Not because of their bias, since I believe the editorial boards of the three aforementioned rags are dripping with it, and would have shaped their reportage this way regardless of the campaign McCain waged. But the fact is that they are hemorrhaging cash and profits, and their stock prices are in the toilet. It is in their best interest to appeal to a wider audience, sell more papers, and generate more web traffic. Wouldn’t it have made sense to post the Khalidi video on the LA Times’ website? Wouldn’t it have increased hits and driven ad revenues up?

    Earlier this year, LA Times also killed the early Edwards Affair stories, and ordered their Bloggers not to report on them; sure it was a salacious bunch of crap, but it happened in the LA Times’ back yard, Edwards was a likely candidate for a cabinet post, and the Grey Lady thought it was OK to report on McCain’s alleged affair earlier in the year, right? Why not let the bloggers discuss it? And more importantly, would they have given Mitt Romney a pass if he were dodging the Enquirer in a Hotel Bathroom?

    So I respectfully disagree with your analysis, Shecky. I am hopeful that this administration does not decide that these three newspapers are too big to fail, and infuse them with a penny of taxpayer funded bailout green. They are failing to earn because they are failing to report.

    Cheers, thanks for the visit, and keep reading. I like to see dissent on these comments, freeflow of info rocks!

    Bob W

  4. i presume by Obama being well black you mean he’ll be asatssinsaed?yes, i think he will be, sorry to be morbidly objective.the Bilderberg Group choose his VP, Obama has no choice.unhappily, i believe that man will be the new President.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s