Posted on 11/07/2006 12:44:02 PM PST by Froufrou
Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell writes that her paper's coverage of Virginia Republican Senator George Allen has been "relentlessly negative" and without balance. Howell also says a profile of Maryland Democratic Senate candidate Ben Cardin was not critical enough — calling it "relentlessly positive"— while the paper underplayed a story about several prominent black Democrats endorsing Republican Michael Steele— who is an African-American.
And Howell agrees with some readers that photographs in the paper tend to show Democrats looking cheerful and confident — and Republicans looking grim.
The New York Times says for the first time in memory it is not endorsing a single Republican Congressional candidate in tomorrow's elections.
The Times says House Republicans have "wrecked the budget, hobbled the middle class and endangered the long-term economy." It describes Republican Congressional leaders as "burned-out" and "brain-dead."
The Times says the election is about President Bush— and blames Congressional Republicans for "protecting him from the consequences of his mistakes and misdeeds."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The Grapevine is about all I can handle nowadays on Fox.
Could this be a sign that WaPo wants to distance themselves from some other rags.
Ah, his show is good for the first 40 minutes then the panel comes on and it goes downhill after that.
Unless of course we are treated to the site of Brit making Juan Williams his beyotch
How can ANY newspaper, magazine, etc. endorse ANY candidate and STILL BE OBJECTIVE?
well, the editorial page is meant to express the paper's opinion.....it is fine as long as the news coverage is fair.
But, it often is not anymore....very liberally biased.
A very good question. Even my fairly even handed Express-News has their 'picks' for every election.
We aren't as liberal as Austin but we've got some real loonies on City Council.
Did they cut-and-paste from the DU or something?
~snorrfle!~
That's what I thought, but no, they didn't because there's no profanity! ;o)
This in the day late, dollar short department just so they cya themselves.
Of course, what a bunch of BS. Now on election day they come out with this after they torched both candidates. Any body that pays for that rag and the NYT should have their heads examined.
This observation by the Post's ombudswoman might have been useful if published several days BEFORE the election.
Right now it simply is a CYA move designed to defuse criticism. "See, we even published a column that said we were biased--so that proves we weren't...blah. blah. blah"
Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell's finding of bias in the WP is laughable and meaningless! It reminds me of Kerry's non-apology apology. Does anyone on the planet think this little cya finding will improve or change The Washingon Post? I don't think so.
So if the Republican's lose because of media bias and false information is Howell encouraging the shut down of the Washington Post? If not then words ring hollow.
A day late and several thousand dollars short.
Completely correct. Lip service.
So...she waits until November 7th???????????????????/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.