Here in the Twin Cities, we are accustomed to our leading newspaper's overt and covert anti-Republican bias, especially when the subject is the Bush administration. Other major broadsheets have similar problems, especially the Los Angeles Times (covered brilliantly by Patterico's Pontifications) and the New York Times. Editorial page preferences don't bother me; the op-ed section is where editors are supposed to take sides. These newspapers allow their editorial bias to inform their supposedly straight news reporting, and that serves no one well.

One newspaper that had been fairly good at separating news from opinion was the Washington Post, which has been fairly straightforward during the Iraq war. Unfortunately, that seems to be changing now that the primary season is in full swing. Hindrocket at Power Line writes a devastatingly detailed critique on the work of the Post's Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus, two reporters whose bias had been at issue in the past as well. Hindrocket provides a first-class look at how reporters, even in the top-line mainstream media, will twist wording and ignore facts in order to write their articles based on their preconceived notions. Usually, reporters are more subtle about it than Milbank and Pincus, especially in this example. You have to wonder what the Post's editors were thinking when they ran this article.

Read the entire thing. It's easily the most worthwhile blog post on the media so far this month.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry is