NY Times' standards for Catholic League's Donohue: Three articles for criticism of Edwards, two paragraphs for criticism of McCain
The New York Times has devoted only two paragraphs and 102 words thus far to Catholic League president Bill Donohue's criticism of Sen. John McCain for his failure to repudiate the support of evangelist John Hagee, who has made statements Donohue considers anti-Catholic, and McCain's ensuing response. By comparison, the Times published three separate articles on Donohue's criticism of former Sen. John Edwards' presidential campaign for hiring two bloggers who Donohue contended were "anti-Catholic, vulgar, trash-talking bigots," and the Edwards campaign's subsequent reaction. Read More
Despite paper's concern "about keeping women as newspaper readers," Wash. Post published essay calling women "kind of dim" and "the stupid sex"
Though Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell has stated that "[c]oncern about keeping women as newspaper readers has been an issue for many years" at the newspaper, the Post published an essay by Charlotte Allen in which she called women "kind of dim," suggested that women were not only "the weaker sex" but "the stupid sex, our brains permanently occluded by random emotions, psychosomatic flailings and distraction by the superficial," and claimed that Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has been "marred by every stereotypical flaw of the female sex." Read More
On Fox News Sunday, Rove and Wallace failed to note Obama has answered questions about Farrakhan
On Fox News Sunday, Karl Rove asserted of Sen. Barack Obama facing questions about the Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan: "Now, having ties to Louis Farrakhan and his anti-Semitic comments, that's -- that's -- you know, people have a reason -- that's a reasonable question: Do you agree with him? Do you renounce him? Do you reject him?" In fact, Obama has denied that his campaign has "ties to" Farrakhan and has answered the questions posed by Rove, having repeatedly denounced Farrakhan's anti-Semitic statements. Read More
Russert misquoted Clinton one day, falsely stated Clinton's and Obama's positions on NAFTA the next
On The Tim Russert Show, Russert falsely claimed that Sen. Hillary Clinton said in 2004: "[O]n substance, NAFTA's been good for New York and America." In fact, what Clinton said in 2004 was: "I think on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America, but I also think that there are a number of areas where we're not dealt with in an upfront way." On Meet the Press, Russert claimed that a video clip showed Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama "coming out against NAFTA"; as the clips made clear, neither candidate "c[ame] out against NAFTA." Read More
NY Times columnist reports McCain "has so far emphasized border security more than the Democrats," not that it's a reversal of his position on immigration
A New York Times Week in Review piece stated: "Senator John McCain, the early Republican front-runner whose championing of the bill [Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007] had made him look soft on illegal immigration, faded in the polls," adding that now McCain has "emphasized border security more than the Democrats have." But the article didn't mention that this "emphasi[s]" on border security is at odds with his previous position. Read More
No comments:
Post a Comment