Walking by newspaper vending machines yesterday, the headlines struck me as informative, highlighting the journalistic approach of each newspaper’s editorial board. Each had its presentation of John Kerry choosing John Edwards as his running mate. Consider:
The New York Times reported the story to imply that Senator Edwards is a skilled politician. Hidden clue: Vote for Kerry/Edwards. Because they’re smart. And those other guys are dumb.
The Washington Post reported the story to imply that Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards are focusing on what matters to Americans. Hidden clue: Vote for Kerry/Edwards. Because they care about what you care about. And those other guys don’t.
The Washington Times reported the story to imply that Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards have much in common with each other. Hidden clue: Vote Bush/Cheney. Because they’re the right guys with real values. And those other guys are vapid, out-of-touch liberals.
Reporting the news is essential, but doing so with an editorial slant is wrong. I don’t like reading marketing material on the front page of a newspaper. While I believe that speaking of “good hair” in the front page headline is the most egregious error of the three, all three are bad. Whether liberal or conservative, bias is bias. I’m concerned about how much worse it’s going to get before November 2nd.
3 thoughts on “Mud incoming! Duck!”
Speaking of “good hair” on the front page IS egregious.
I wonder what kind of shoes they wear…
It will only get a LOT worse, unfortunately. There’s a lot of momentum on both sides of the spectrum this year (“Vote for anybody but Bush,” “We need Bush to keep our issues going”).
Sorry Guys, One issue Diana here. Although I do agree with Danielle. Shoes are VERY important!
Comments are closed.