Injudicial Reporting at LA Times
Is it just extremely lousy reporting or an extremely lousy heart? Probably a little of both, as the LA Times launches its first shot in what may just be CSM's next "Scoundrel Chronicles" list of media bias: The Bush judicial nominations. (here)
It starts with the headline:
Bush to Revive Failed Judicial Nominations
Hmm. Maybe "filibuster" is just too long a word for a headline. (It really isn't, as you'll see later in this post.) There are a couple passing mentions of filibusters in the Times story, but the emphasis of the article paints a picture of the nominees FAILING to win Senate approval, when in fact they were never given the opportunity to face a Senate vote.
And don't you think there just might have been a better photo than this one of Judge Janice Brown, which was prominently displayed in the article and the LA Times web site:
The photo is an example of photo editing as media bias. There are not a ton of Janice Brown photos on Google, but all of them are better than this one, which seems to show a major judicial nominee on the point of tears. Surely the LA Times photographers had numerous images more complimentary than this one for their editors to select from.
Meanwhile, the OC Register quickly dispenses with any chance it would repeat the LATimes' foolishness. (here) Compare this headline to the LA Times hed:
Bush resumes judge battle with filibustering Democrats
No mention of "failing" in the Senate and a clear mention of filibustering. And the Register's second paragraph more clearly defines the story than the entire LATimes story did:
The list includes seven of the 10 candidates whose nominates failed during Bush's first term because of Democratic filibusters that blocked Senate confirmation votes.
There. Was that so hard? Apparently it is, if you are the agenda-driven, extremely anti-Bush LATimes.
Against all the hand-wringing over the meaning of the "morality vote," the LATimes story shows MSM still can't stomach the key elements of the conservative agenda: right to life, Constitutionalism and small government. As the nominations proceed, it's unlikely they'll be able to moderate their bias, even with the knowledge that they do so at the risk of further alienating their already shrinking reader/viewer base.
It starts with the headline:
Bush to Revive Failed Judicial Nominations
Hmm. Maybe "filibuster" is just too long a word for a headline. (It really isn't, as you'll see later in this post.) There are a couple passing mentions of filibusters in the Times story, but the emphasis of the article paints a picture of the nominees FAILING to win Senate approval, when in fact they were never given the opportunity to face a Senate vote.
And don't you think there just might have been a better photo than this one of Judge Janice Brown, which was prominently displayed in the article and the LA Times web site:
The photo is an example of photo editing as media bias. There are not a ton of Janice Brown photos on Google, but all of them are better than this one, which seems to show a major judicial nominee on the point of tears. Surely the LA Times photographers had numerous images more complimentary than this one for their editors to select from.
Meanwhile, the OC Register quickly dispenses with any chance it would repeat the LATimes' foolishness. (here) Compare this headline to the LA Times hed:
Bush resumes judge battle with filibustering Democrats
No mention of "failing" in the Senate and a clear mention of filibustering. And the Register's second paragraph more clearly defines the story than the entire LATimes story did:
The list includes seven of the 10 candidates whose nominates failed during Bush's first term because of Democratic filibusters that blocked Senate confirmation votes.
There. Was that so hard? Apparently it is, if you are the agenda-driven, extremely anti-Bush LATimes.
Against all the hand-wringing over the meaning of the "morality vote," the LATimes story shows MSM still can't stomach the key elements of the conservative agenda: right to life, Constitutionalism and small government. As the nominations proceed, it's unlikely they'll be able to moderate their bias, even with the knowledge that they do so at the risk of further alienating their already shrinking reader/viewer base.
posted by Laer at 9:29 AM
<< Home