Tuesday, January 31, 2006

More biased reporting. (This post's not what you think.)

As any of my longer-time readers know, I'm not a fan of the MSM's "opinion-masquerading-as-news" approach to writing stories. Editorials and opinion columns are fine for that sort of thing but when you're purporting to report the news, you need to leave dripping bias out of it. I aim that criticism at the liberal media quite often. The Washington Times isn't one of them, but they're going to get my criticism today.

The story I wrote my last post referencing (the Liberal activists who plan to try to suppress the President's speech) literally screams "bias" and it's bias against the protesters, not the administration. It's so bloody obvious it's embarrassing. You get the first part of it right there in the quote I posted. Why is it necessary to point out that some of the activists are "graying leftovers" from the Vietnam era? It doesn't end there, either. Check out this bit of prose:

::::::::Attending yesterday's private lunch were about 100 anti-war activists, many of them silver-haired, bespectacled veterans of the 1960s in linty sweaters and Naturalizers, nibbling on vegan pizza and bean sprouts. On the wall was a painted collage of slogans ("Make Love Not War") and nostalgic faces such as Joan Baez, Bella Abzug and a younger, thinner Ralph Nader.::::::::

Now, what in the world does their attire have to do with the message they're putting out? "Linty sweaters?" Judgemental, much?

The author of this story couldn't have been more blatant without spelling it out: The protesters are old, out of touch, old, icky liberals. Did I mention they're old? She takes up valuable inches relating how 1 of the aging, ancient protesters recalls an article written in 1974. (Oh my God. People from 1974 are still alive??? The horror!) Between that and trying to portray Ramsey Clark as a doddering old man she's just doing her best to convince her readers that these people can be dismissed owing to their age.

It's that action - trying to convince her readers of something rather than informing them of what's going on - that crosses the line between reporting and advocacy. It's not acceptable when the liberals at the New York Times do it and it's not acceptable at the Washington Times, either.