Media Circles the Wagons Amid Accusations of Bias Against Romney
Politico may have ulterior motives for accusing the Washington Post and New York Times of bias against Romney. But they also have a point.
5:30 PM, May 31, 2012 • By MARK HEMINGWAY
This morning Politico made the worst mistake a mainstream media outlet can make—acknowledging the blindingly obvious truth there is a pronounced media bias against Republicans, specifically Mitt Romney. Predictably, there has been some circling of the wagons. Woe be unto us if the the defenseless Washington Post and New York Times credibility erodes to the point where the center-left has less of an information stranglehold.
Oddly, GQ is the publication defending the sacred honor of America's two most influential media outlets with a piece titled, "Five Points About Politico's Hatchet Job On NYT and WaPo" by Devin Gordon. Before I start piling on, let me say that I read GQ and have liked Gordon's writing in the past. But, alas, this piece merits some special attention. From the first paragraph:
If Maraniss works for the Post, then why didn't his own paper cover Obama's pot-smoking high school days? (I can only find the Post mentioning it in this blog post on their website.) Considering the fact they didn't highlight his reporting, isn't the fact Maraniss works for the Post even more damning? Especially in light of the Post front-paging a story on Romney's hazing of other kids in prep school nearly 50 years ago? As for mentioning that the Times did cover Obama's years as a stoner, you have to make a pretty concerted effort to dismiss the actual point Politico made in their article, which is that not all coverage is created equal:
So a front page story equals a brief on page A15. Never mind that Ann Romney's hobby is perhaps even less relevant to the election than Obama's high school days (though I don't think the fact Obama was a huge stoner in high school is all that big a deal to begin with). Moving on to point number one of five in the piece:
When GQ writes "Tony Rezco[sic]--remember him?" that's unintentionally revealing. I bet a lot of people do need a refresh on Rezko. In all the hyperventilating about Romney's wealth--Dressage! Car elevators!--how often does the media point out Obama's not only not poor, but that he lives in a $1.6 million house that he got through a series of really shady deals with a guy convicted on numerous charges of public corruption?