Why Doesn't the Times Cover the News? [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
From our friend Byron York:
Wright. Jones. Freeman. Edwards. For simplicity's sake, I've focused on the Times' coverage, but other top news outlets also ignored or underreported some of those stories. Why?
Certainly there's bias involved. Given what we know from the formal and informal polling of journalists at mainstream organizations, most of the people involved in political reporting are liberals, and likely Democrats. They want the Obama administration to succeed.
But the question may not be so much who they are, as who they hate, or at least who they intensely dislike.
The first words of the Times' story on Jones' resignation were, "In a victory for Republicans and the Obama administration's conservative critics. ..." One news anchor suggested Jones was "the Republican right's first scalp." Other coverage called the Jones affair a victory for Glenn Beck, Fox News, right-wing blogs, and even Sarah Palin, who played no role in the matter.
If you throw in Rush Limbaugh, you have all the bogey-people of the conservative world. To some on the left, including some journalists, denying them a victory was a top priority, no matter what Van Jones had said and done.
There was a day, not too long ago, when the Times and other influential news organizations could kill a story — could deny the bad guys a win — simply by ignoring it. Sometimes they still try. But it just won't work anymore.
The Corner on National Review Online (8 September 2009)
corner.nationalreview.com |
