They're not too partisan, oh no
It really got to me the other day to read Justice Scalia's opinion of the two Washington papers (not my ellipsis, by the way).
We just get The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times. We used to get the Washington Post, but it just … went too far for me. I couldn’t handle it anymore.As you may be aware, from my periodic survey of their front pages, the two are ... not much alike. But if Scalia thinks the Post is a liberal paper, he'd better never get anywhere near something like The Nation. And here's a nice example of which one is "shrill" and partisan and which one isn't: their coverage of yesterday's third and final debate in the Virginia gubernatorial race between Ken Cuccinelli (R) and Terry MacAuliffe (D), starting with what page they put it on:
Q: What tipped you over the edge?
It was the treatment of almost any conservative issue. It was slanted and often nasty. And, you know, why should I get upset every morning? I don’t think I’m the only one. I think they lost subscriptions partly because they became so shrilly, shrilly liberal.
1 Comments:
-
At 9:15 PM, October 25, 2013
Kathie had this to say...
-
-
<-- Older Post ^ Home Newer Post -->Va. voters who read the Times are, I imagine, highly likely to vote for Cuccinelli anyhow, no matter how slanted or unslanted the Times' coverage is. The only slight benefit to Cuccinelli I can think of would be if the Times' headlines spur his base a bit more.
One silver lining re the recent government shutdown is that apparently some Feds in Va. seized the opportunity to vote early, and perhaps they voted more strongly Democratic than the Old Dominion's electorate at large:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/in-virginia-a-swing-state-turns-against-the-tea-party/280823/?google_editors_picks=true
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]