Althouse: "It’s no surprise to anyone who pays attention that mainstream media tilt their coverage in favor of Democrats and leftish ideas."

May 6, 2012

"It’s no surprise to anyone who pays attention that mainstream media tilt their coverage in favor of Democrats and leftish ideas."

"But it’s not confined to endless puff pieces about the president, or the ignoring of unpleasant facts."

I'm guessing even that is no surprise to you, but it's Glenn Reynolds, laying out the evidence, so it's good reading, and — it's in the NY Post — perhaps needed remedial reading for some.

22 comments:

edutcher said...: Dr Goebbels nods his assent.

O! For the days of centralized media.

That's when you could really do propaganda.; 5/6/12, 10:52 AM
Matt Sablan said...: I think this election year will really help people come to grips with understanding that the media is not an unbiased reporter.; 5/6/12, 10:56 AM
bagoh20 said...: Most liberals I talk to can't see the bias at all. I'm not sure if it's an inability or an unwillingness, but it's a pretty easy case to make with plenty of evidence in the media every single day.

I really notice the power of the bias when I discuss something with a liberal friend who's working with a completely different set of facts and perspectives. It seems there is no truth that is agreed on 100%, and often the accepted versions are exact opposites, with both having extensive "bibliography" in mainstream media. You see the same thing here in discussions.

It usually comes down to: "Who are you gonna believe?" Clearly, there are a lot of liars working in the field.; 5/6/12, 11:27 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: It’s no surprise to anyone who pays attention that mainstream media tilt their coverage in favor of Democrats and leftish ideas.

I haven't read it yet, but your quote leaves out the phrase "and they're proud of it."

Also - since you mentioned knowing I'm already aware of this - I'd like to say how wonderful it is that Glenn bothered to tell me something I already know. Valuable service, that.

Or (forgetting about me) does this also fall under the heading of "what most people don't think"? And, if so, why should he bother? If they're not thinking about something already - like they don't think about the dangers of "alternative" medicine - it can't be of any actual importance, can it? I mean, since they're not thinking about it already, what's the point of telling them anything, Teacher? Let them go on killing each other with this crap because they didn't consider it was possibility. That's, clearly, the intelligent way to handle any life-and-death situation.

The "logic" of law professors rock my world,...; 5/6/12, 11:32 AM
Hagar said...: Bias you cannot escape - as in the old saying that objectivity is just your subjective opinion of objectivity - but you must report.
When the MSM goes to deliberate misrepresentation and obfuscation of the facts, that is "agitprop," not reporting.

And the MSM is not "in the bag" for the Democratic Party - any Democrat politician who relies on that may well find out otherwise if the situation favors throwing him "under the bus."

The MSM represent a movement, the Democratic Party is only seen as the most convenient vehicle for furthering the aims of the movement, and it is really the other way around. The scandal is that the Democratic Party is "in the bag" for the MSM.; 5/6/12, 11:42 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Oh, and I'm really glad to see it's Glenn Reynolds writing this - you know, the man who wants to put a Mormon in the White House, but restricts any discussion of Mormonism to the word "bigotry!"

The man who won't discuss cultism as he's built an adoring, unquestioning, clique around himself.

The man who won't post his critics.

And the man who spreads quackery.

I swear, he sets such a fine example for the mainstream media, I could just BUST!; 5/6/12, 11:43 AM
Hagar said...: If you are in the movement, it is no sin to lie for the cause.; 5/6/12, 12:38 PM
Fen said...: There is a bright side: an endless supply of Libtards who still believe in things like anthropogenic global warming, have never heard of Fast and Furious, think Zimmerman is a white racist stalker, etc.

Fish in a barrel on a slow day.; 5/6/12, 12:50 PM
ricpic said...: I don't get the crack about the NY Post and remedial reading. Unless it's the taken for granted assumption by the Althousian class that readers of tabloids are dimwitted slopeheads. Nevermind the fact that the limited amount of investigative press reporting in the past several years has come exclusively from The National Enquirer and Britain's Sun and Daily Mail. Plus the fact that readers of the Post are regularly informed in Post editorials of the way the NY Times plays fast and loose with the truth, albeit hiding its lies in a thicket of obfuscation.; 5/6/12, 12:53 PM
traditionalguy said...: I like Glen Reynolds way of thinking. He is not close to as good as the Professor, but he thinks like I do.; 5/6/12, 1:01 PM
traditionalguy said...: And I like Crack's way of thinking too. He and Reynolds complement the other.

Reynolds stays on the surface where the reading public lives and makes it interesting, while Crack takes us down to the ever present conflict between gnostic faith in cult gods and what Judeo-Christian traditions reveals about the One True God...not that Crack will admit any god into the discussion.; 5/6/12, 1:11 PM
virgil xenophon said...: @tradguy/

"gnostic faith in cult gods" is what the left is all about--full stop.; 5/6/12, 2:02 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Tg,

Reynolds stays on the surface where the reading public lives and makes it interesting, while Crack takes us down to the ever present conflict between gnostic faith in cult gods and what Judeo-Christian traditions reveals about the One True God...not that Crack will admit any god into the discussion.

Hey, dude, I've missed you.

While you're right that I insist there's no God (or gods) you're also correct that I'm gladly acknowledging the spiritual/religious "battle" that rages around me through their followers - a subject I think Reynolds ignores, even as he participates in it through his advocacy for cultism and quackery.

It's a major failing of his, I think, partially because he's not alone in his participation but mostly because - since that is the case - as an educator, he's abdicating his responsibility to inform himself and others.

Telling us what we already know is doing us no favors, and though it could also be considered insulting (coming from the elitist perch Reynolds sits upon) I'm comforted to know such condescension usually doesn't pay off in the long run. What I'm saying is - though it's obvious Reynolds is toying with the rest of our very-real lives - I find I can still derive a *little* joy from watching him build his intellectual house of cards, knowing that, with each foray further into the public sphere, he'll have an ever-bigger audience for it's inevitable crumbling.

Reality is a motherfucker, and such blind spots are legion.

It's still a shame though, because I always thought I'd witness us only destroying the other guys - not ourselves as well.; 5/6/12, 2:23 PM
Alex said...: Crack - in a perfect world we'd discuss the cultish aspects of Mormonism. But isn't getting rid of Obama more important?; 5/6/12, 2:43 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/6/12, 3:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Funny, dog my cats. We never know who anyone is anymore.

We talked about this at the Oval Room brunch this morning. The whole idea of the Committee to Re-elect the POTUS is to help the press see things our way.

We are doing it, we have done it and we will continue to do it. We are so successful that the press reading the NY Post are just shrugging their shoulders and moving on.

You see, folks, it is all over!

The re-election is in the bag.

The victory is a foot.; 5/6/12, 3:06 PM
Andy Freeman said...: > in a perfect world we'd discuss the cultish aspects of Mormonism.

Why?

(1) It's no more "cultish" than any other mainstream religion.
(2) Discussions of the "cultish" aspects of mainstream religions are rarely worthwhile. They consist of athiests and believers trying to top one another in stupid statements.; 5/6/12, 3:13 PM
Alex said...: Andy - obviously we have to discuss Mormonism because Crack has stated he won't vote for Romney on that basis alone. In fact 1/3 of evangelical Christian Republicans will not vote for Romney because of his religion.; 5/6/12, 3:18 PM
Seeing Red said...: The whole idea of the Committee to Re-elect the POTUS is to help the press see things our way.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

CREEP!; 5/6/12, 3:20 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: Crack Emcee,
It took electing Obama for the bullshit Critical Race Theory and its dominance in black cultural worldview to become apparent. President Obama and his minions' (like Eric Holder) fumbling of racial issues over and over has actually hastened the arrival of the day when MLK, Jr.'s dream of people being judged by character instead of skin color.

So electing Romney will likewise actually allow more open discussion of the cultishness of LDS/Mormonism. Right now they can dodge criticism by claiming to be victims of religious bigotry. They can't do that after a strong majority of Americans elect him President, right?

You should be eager to elect him on that basis.; 5/6/12, 7:06 PM
Anonymous said...: The COmmittee to Re-Elect (CORE) for the POTUS is the best group I have ever had the pleasure to be associated with. Indeed, I am constantly going to brunches and happy-hours with a Blonde from the campaign. I am convinced my luck will only be enhanced with the strong victory. I fully expect to have a corner office in WH. Ours is the chosen path. Ours is the destiny for a victory.

There is no possibly, none, nadda, zero/negative, for Romney to win even one state. Even SC, the reddest state will go for us. This week we showed how OH and VA will go for us. Each week we will tackle at least two states.

Cheerio! It is all over, folks!

Member of the CORE for the POTUS; 5/6/12, 8:53 PM
yashu said...: America's Politico! Glad to see that worrisome episode of Dissociative Identity Disorder is over-- or at least, that the other personality (the Mittbot one) is, as it were, in remission, under control. Be on your guard, though. Wouldn't it be a kick in the head if that alter-- dormant for the entire campaign-- were to come out just at the very moment you cast your vote! Scary.

Now that I think about it… hmmm. I'd make extra sure to take all your psych medication and keep a record of all the minutes of your day. As you're now part of the inner circle, the very CORE of the Obama campaign, so involved in high-level campaign strategery as to perchance merit a WH corner office… if that Mittbot alter of yours, the Hyde to your Jekyll, were ever to take over, he sure could cause a lot of mischief… and you'd be none the wiser, blacking out and remembering nothing of it.

In fact, considering the events of the last few weeks, are you sure… Nah, couldn't be. No need to panic. But be sure not to miss a single appointment with your psychotherapist. After all, you want to be sure that if anyone gets lucky with the blonde, it's you and not… him.

Seriously, consider the worst case scenario. If, against all odds, the virtually impossible were to occur-- and Romney beats Obama, the blonde will need someone's shoulder to cry on, someone will have to be there to pick up the pieces. If Romney wins, and the blonde seeks comfort in your arms… but those arms at that moment belong to your evil Mittbot alter, who with an evil grin…

Too creepy to contemplate. Take care, America's Politico. I look forward to more dispatches from Obama HQ. I'd especially love to hear about the cocaine-and-ecstasy-fueled parties (or parties fueled by whatever the white hipster kids at Obama HQ take these days). All hail Obama!; 5/7/12, 12:11 AM