the blog of DC Drinking Liberally
Take a look at the headlines various news organizations chose to put on their stories about the GAO’s finding that the administration violated the law in paying commentator Armstrong Williams to shill for No Child Left Behind on his broadcasts:
Does one of them stand out as different? Yes, the headline in our “liberal” Washington Post puts the best spin on the story for the Bush administration — better even than those by Fox News or the Washington Times.
But speaking of the story itself, any bets on whether anyone responsible will have to suffer any consequences for breaking the law other than perhaps promising never to do it again?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
46 queries. 1.184 seconds
Good observation. I wonder if there have been any formal studies done on the biases of the WaPo Company. These biases may or may not be left or right, they could just be biased in favor of those in power. Whatever, their biases are, they are certainly not liberal.
—Jason Bradfield • 7:45 am, October 3
This is purely subjective, but it seems to me, if you want fair news from the Post, your best bet is to look from A8 back, or to read some of the interviews in the Style section. Before the Iraq war, I remember an interview with Norman Schwarzkopf that centered around his autobiography - there were some pithy things said in reference to the war that you never, ever saw in the “hard news” sections of the WaPo or the NYT.
—StealthBadger • 8:11 am, October 3
It used to be that conservatives called the Post “Pravda on the Potomac” to indicate that they viewed it as being leftist or even communist. Nowadays that nickname has acquired a different connotation. People who use it mean that the Post is a propaganda organ supporting the administration.
—Keith • 8:54 am, October 3
I wish I’d remembered thinking this earlier when I was posting this morning. What MSNBC is to Fox, the Post is to the Times, for exactly the same reasons.
—StealthBadger • 3:03 pm, October 3