On October 6th, 2008 at 12:36 pm, chapoutier said:
Why am I not suprised that you completely missed the point?
Oh please. Do fill me in.

The bias is not in what they do report, it’s what they DON’T report. It’s the lie of omission.

http://www.rottenacorn.com

This year journalistic integrity went out the door for the MSM – the PD included.

that happened more than 35 years ago for the PD…

Remember the VP debate? Here is a fairly well-written editorial about the bias of Gwen Ifill. I think it says a lot about media bias and how questions and articles can convey more than at first meets the eye. Worth reading

But I’ll bet you people Democratic Party activists in St. Louis care more about Bonds than Dodd or Franks. Which is why they wrote about him

Why do I have to keep fixing it for you?

There’s been more recorded history between the likes of FM and Dodd and Franks than Bond. That’s why people find the PD coverage of Bond so questionable. Is the PD asserting that Bond didn’t do enough for/against the FM’s? What is it?

Okay, fine. But I’ll bet you people in St. Louis care more about Bonds than Dodd or Franks. Which is why they wrote about him.

It had no context and no point of reference.

Sure it did. They listed how much Dodd had received as a point of reference to what Bonds did.

The Post-Dispatch has been a liberal rag for a long time. In a metropolitan area the size of St. Louis and St. Louis County, please don’t insult our intelligence by suggesting that the local newspaper is parochial enough to only discuss local politicians and their affiliations. They are not above carrying the liberal banner as far and wide as they can.

This year journalistic integrity went out the door for the MSM – the PD included.

When the PD makes not only some questionable but doubtful assertions about Sen. Bond’s role in the FM debacle what is the information that they’re using to back up such assertions? Donations? Is that it? What was his position regarding FM? Why are they soley using donations to assert “coziness?”

There’s been more recorded history between the likes of FM and Dodd and Franks than Bond. That’s why people find the PD coverage of Bond so questionable. Is the PD asserting that Bond didn’t do enough for/against the FM’s? What is it?

I think you’re just being really petty. This wasn’t even a balanced article. It had no context and no point of reference. Just some vague accusations and insinuations. Is that your idea of good journalism?

I agree. This one article does not prove a liberal bias in the paper it was printed in. Why are you spending so much effort on such a minor point?

There is a liberal bias in the MSM in this country. All you have to do to determine this is look at their voter registration, their political contributions, and their articles.

Why fall on your sword on this particular minor issue? OK – this one article does not prove their bias – but I can imagine that readers of that paper who also comment here could show a pattern of bias.

If I wanted to spend the time I could probably go online and read some of their editorials, etc. For what purpose?

Remember all the coverage of George W Bush and alleged cocaine use? Even 60 minutes ran articles about this and his kids underage drinking. Now, just 8 years later there is almost no mention of BHO’s admitted heavy marijuana and cocaine use (as admitted to in his books). Have we as a nation decided that drug use is OK, so it is no longer newsworthy? I don’t think so.
I could present several examples of such one-sided behavior in the MSM, but while you are right here, your stubbornness on this minor point is curious to me.