Media Bias In Virginia

This is suppression of speech. There are already so few conservatively inclined news outlets, once Obama signs off on a new Fairness Doctrine, even the wildly successful conservative talk radio will be lost to Democrat regulators' definitions of equal speech. And you thought this stuff only happened in Soviet Russia.

Brendan Miniter from todays WSJ Political diary on the depth and breadth of liberal media bias:

This presidential campaign has seen its share of biased reporting in favor of the Democratic candidate, but two Virginia newspapers have done something that was suppose to be taboo in journalism. The Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Virginia Pilot knocked down the wall separating the newsroom from the ad department. But instead of the ad men pressuring news reporters, it was the newsroom dictating terms to the ad department.

The National Rifle Association sought to take out ads in the run-up to Election Day criticizing Barack Obama's record on guns. According to Editor & Publisher, the pro-gun ads were to run in at least three states, printed on the plastic bags in which subscribers receive their morning newspapers. One state targeted by the NRA was Virginia, which Mr. Obama hopes to poach from the Republican column tomorrow. But the Virginia Pilot rejected the ad outright, while the Times-Dispatch initially accepted it and then changed its mind.

What happened? The ad met a wall of resistance from the paper's newsroom and some in the executive suite. In a story explaining why it eventually rejected the ad, the Virginia Pilot quoted its own business development manager Alan Levenstein: "We want to make sure that we provide equity for all sides, make sure that there is a level playing field."

Huh? Issue ads aimed at influencing the political process are routinely published by newspapers. If readers might misconstrue an ad as an editorial endorsement, editors afford themselves the right print the word "advertisement" prominently on the ad. And anyone with an opposing view is free to take out their own ad or write a letter.

Thankfully, some newspapers understood the real issue here: editorial bias. The Lexington Herald-Leader told its readers that, unlike the Virginia papers, it had "decided to distribute the bag because of [the paper's] belief that free speech extends to advertising."

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

NewsBusters, Iowahawk, &c.

Just posted my latest piece at NewsBusters. In it, I look at a new web-service--SpinSpotter--which claims to be able to detect spin and bias in the media. Hopefully it can live up to its promise.

SpinSpotter: Exposing Media Bias or Reinforcing It?

And in other news, Iowahawk listed his latest bit of satire. This time he extols the many virtues of pigs. Enjoy!

Pigs are intelligent! Say what you what you will about pig noises and eating habits, one thing is certain: pigs are smart. In fact, scientists estimate that on average pigs have three times the intelligence of the pit bull, and this is why the hog shed is often referred to as "Harvard of the barnyard." Despite their undeniably superior mental powers, pigs somehow still trail dogs in popularity, which can only be attributed to America's pernicious anti-intellectualism.

Regarding lipstickgate: Obambi backers, do you think your guy is the smartest candidate for POTUS in the history of candidates for that office, or don't you? If he's so smart, do you really think he's not going to get the verbal association of "bulldog w/ lipstick" and "lipstick on a pig?"

Like I said yesterday, I don't care, really, that he resorts to personal attacks. Why shouldn't he? His followers (correction: supporters) at DU, dKos, & HuffPo all do it when they get beat, it's only fair he get to do so too.

Or, as Jim Treacher puts it:

I'm having second thoughts. I think he meant exactly what the crowd obviously thought he meant, because it fits a clear pattern of behavior.

Putting aside the astonishing smear campaign against Palin, which is definitely not grassroots, just look at some of Obama's past antics. In no particular order:

* What was the Obama camp's initial reaction to Palin's announcement?

"Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same."

Yeowtch! And her palmprints on the podium were still warm. (Quite a contrast to McCain's ad, less than 24 hours earlier, congratulating Obama on his achievement.) But then, later that same day, Obama walked it back:

"I think that... campaigns start getting these hair triggers and the statement that Joe and I put out reflects our sentiments," he said, according to the pool report, apparently criticizing his staff for going overboard, as he did occasionally in the primary.

So he's not the hostile, panicky jackass. It was his staff's fault. Yes We Can... Pass the Buck!
[...]

And he goes on from there to list numerous other examples.

Obama and his campaign are far too calculated and clever for this to have been unintentional.

Finally, for anyone who cares, or who also happens to be a fan of a sucktastic baseball team: What it's like to be a Mariner's fan.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

NewsBusters #2

This time, James Rainey of the L.A. Times feels the heat of my NewsBusters blogging [burn]:

Surprise! LAT Finds Media Treating McCain, Obama Similarly

Hey James Rainey, how about a little honest journalism?


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.