I owe a shout out to Samantha at Upstream/Downstream for this beauty....
OK, kids, here's a question for y'all: Why is it acceptable for a Conservatively-oriented media outlet to display it's political biases and cloak it as "fair and balanced reporting", but when an organization with a more left-leaning outlook opinionizes, it's guilty of "Liberal bias"? What is it about Conservatives that allows them to display insanely hypocritical degrees of self-righteousness and yet deplore the same behavior in those who think differently?
Anyone who has read perused my site since Day 1 (9.3.01) should be very familiar with my disdain for the Fox Nuisance Channel. FNC is little more than a Conservative propaganda machine poorly disguised as cable news channel. Roger Ailes' creation is not the "fair and balanced" network that it's incessant advertising repetition would have you believe. (I will give Ailes credit where credit is due, though- he has the Josef Goebbels "Big Lie" shtick down cold.)
Now I'm subjected to FNC's Brit Hume, that paragon of impartial dialogue, opining on the "Liberal bias" of the New York Times. Why does the phrase "hypocritical hack" come to mind almost immediately??
The New York Times has long been considered the gold standard of print journalism in America. It is the nation's paper of record and possibly the most influential newspaper in the world. No seven-day newspaper in America has more circulation, and none has won more Pulitzer Prizes.
Recently though, a series of front-page stories on the U.S. and Iraq has led some critics to charge that the Times' editorial-page views are spilling into its news coverage.
For example, there is this. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote in The Washington Post on August 12 about Iraq, quote, "The imminence of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the huge dangers it involves, the rejection of a viable inspection system, and the demonstrated hostility of Saddam Hussein all combine to produce an imperative for preemptive action." By the end of the week, though, the Times was listing Dr. Kissinger among those who were critical of President Bush's policy.
So, is the revered newspaper using its front pages to support its editorial-page opposition to war with Iraq?
And so what if it is? The Washington Times and The Wall Street Journal are notorious for their right-wing bent, and yet you don't hear Liberals thumping their chests in indignation. Politics and opinions go together like athletes and strippers. Of course, a responsible media outlet should generally avoid openly and unabashedly advancing a particular political agenda. Nonetheless, there are human beings involved, and editorial policy will generally reflect the political biases of management. Where is the crime in that? Most editorial boards realize that they cater to an entire community- right, left, and center- and they're normally intelligent enough to avoid alienating their target audience. Of course, FNC would qualify as an exception here, but their target audience seems to be well-off "I got mine" Republicans and right-wing NRA members.
It's a pretty simple equation, really- if you don't like the political slant of a newspaper, there are plenty of other papers out there that can and will deliver news to you. The same is true for radio, magazines, television, or the Internet. Obviously, the New York Times is the nation's newspaper of record for a reason- it is the best at what it does. I fail to see how the political slant of the Times' editorial board diminishes the quality or validity of their product.
I might be willing to give this story more deliberate and reasoned consideration if it had been done by anyone besides FNC and Brit Hume. It saddens me that they would cheapen the craft of journalism by using their political biases to attack another, much more capable and successful media outlet for their political bent. What a hatchet job. What hypocrisy....
