« Stalin Joins Philosophical Fathers of the Right | Main | That Whacky Santorum »



Not a single surprise here.


Just as I don't find it useful to quote The Washington Times, WorldNetDaily or even FoxNews.com to support conservative positions, an LA Times story saying that American efforts in Iraq are failing makes me yawn.

So a partisan "news" organization publishes a piece which supports their own agenda. Who cares? LAT reporters aren't going to report (or their editors will remove) anything that counters the organization's position, just like the conservative organizations I listed above. What's new?


Boyd - Are you kidding me? I usually read comments from you that have some substance to them. Here you simply claim bias and therefore dismiss the content.

The information cited by Marjo can't be dismissed as inaccurate simply because it's reported in the LA Times. It's reported in plenty of other media outlets as well. Are they all lying, biased against Bush or against the war in Iraq?

The question here should be whether the facts listed above are really as damning as they seem. You can make an argument that they aren't - like the Washington Times did in regard to electricity (i.e. demand is up significantly because of Iraq purchase of air conditioners, TVs, and radios). You can similarly try to show why the facts on water and sewage treatment plants aren't damning. You can provide context that takes what seems quite negative and show why it's not.

What you can't (or shouldn't) do is simply disregard the truth because you dislike the source. When I hear Fox report things that make me see red, I don't assume the facts aren't true - I usually think the spin isn't. There's a difference there and it's important. You are one of a handful of conservatives that I read that hasn't seemed attracted to the handy trick of disregarding information on the basis of alleged liberal bias in the media. I hope that's not changing.


Sorry for the late return.

My comment actually dealt more with the subject of "blogging" than with the substance of Marjo's post. If I can't find a less biased source for one of my posts than WND, then I don't post it. If I do find such a source, I cite it instead of WND.

It's kinda like the recent Bloomberg headline that said (paraphrasing) "Rumsfeld Says US Has No Exit Strategy for Iraq," when what he actually said was, "We don't have an exit strategy, we have a victory strategy." After such blatant twisting of the facts, I would never cite Bloomberg to support an anti-Bush Administration position. They've proved themselves too biased.


Ahhh. Can I cite the LA Times if I have a second source? Or if they cite a source as they did here - Bechtel?

I agree that headlines can be terribly misleading but that's why you have to read the underlying articles. In this case, the Bloomberg head was awful but the article made it clear that Rummy was trying his hand (badly) at spin. I think the headline was a writer's offense at how bald the spin was. Inappropriate and misleading, I agree.

Glad you haven't morphed into a reactionary who screams liberal bias every time the media reports something they don't like.


Hey, I'm not specifying THE RULES FOR POLITICAL BLOGGING, I'm just blathering my opinion (as usual). You're welcome to cite whatever sources you want. For me, I'm never going to use WND as a source for anything. I'll use The Washington Times or FoxNews.com on rare occasion, but if it's a subject that appears to slam the Left, I'll leave them out because so many people will flatly disregard anything they have to say.

I guess that last sentence is my main point: it's not so much what I believe or who I trust to report a story, it's about the readers' opinions.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Search this Site with Google