The "balance" that isn't

From the much-missed-by-(at-least-some)-Post-readers Dan Froomkin, an excellent look at "media bias" - and how the fear of displaying it has led to context-less and therefore meaning-less parrot-reporting.

The Republican-led House yesterday voted to make deep cuts to the food stamps program that has kept millions of American families from going hungry since the recession hit, saying its response to growing need was instead a sign of bloat and abuse.

The New York Times editorial board this morning said the vote "can be seen only as an act of supreme indifference."

But that's not the way the paper's own reporters covered it. Like those at essentially every other mainstream news organization, they wrote it straight. They focused on procedure. They quoted both sides. And they called it a day.

I decided to closely examine this morning's coverage of the vote because such a blatantly absurd and cruel move struck me as a good test of whether the Washington press corps could ever bring itself to call things as they so obviously are -- or whether they would check their very good brains at the door and just write triangulating mush that leaves readers to fend for themselves. It was no contest.

I't's an excellent review of the coverage, and the way few mainstream reporters even hinted at the fraudulent "balance" of GOP says it's bloated; Dems say it's saving families.

This sort of thing, along with "journalists" like Chuck Todd saying things like

"But more importantly, [Americans would repeat] stuff that Republicans have successfully messaged against [Obamacare.] They don't repeat the other stuff because they haven't even heard the Democratic message. What I always love is people say, 'Well, it's you folks' fault in the media.' No, it's the President of the United States' fault for not selling it."

- this is why Wikileaks. This is why Snowden.

This is why "Old Media" is dying; it's suicide by profit-driven-owners.