Don't overlook continuing bias at the Seattle Times

See update at the bottom.
-----
Sent this morning to Seattle Times Editor at large Michael Fancher:

Good morning Mr. Fancher,

I wanted to just say "Hi" and say I'm still here and still troubled with the Times coverage, even in this post-election world. I don't read many Seattle Times stories, but it's so interesting that when I do I see such questionable journalistic integrity.

First let me say I've had my share of experience with local papers and trying to get fair coverage. I and others opposed a totally corrupt series of land use decisions in King County and learned the frustration in trying to get balanced reporting from the Times and other local papers, and one thing that was made abundantly clear was the effort by the press to quote all sides, if only all sides within the governmental structure. And this is what leads me to question, again, the coverage of another political story out of Washington DC.

Today's criticism is related to the coverage of Nancy Pelosi's failure yesterday to get Jack Murtha elected as House Majority Leader:

Pelosi loses first big fight: Democrats shun Murtha

So when looking at the quotes in this story about the first real failure of the Demcorat Pelosi to get her handpicked guy, who did the Times quote?

Anonymous House Democrat
Barney Frank, Democrat
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat
Jack Murtha, Democrat
Rep. Stephen Lynch, Democrat
Rep. Allen Boyd, Democrat
Rep. Maxine Waters, Democrat
Rep. Kendrick Meek, Democrat

And that is it. In a story about the failure of the newly elected Democrat Speaker of the United States House of Representatives to get her handpicked guy elected, not a single Republican is quoted on this failure. Not one, while no fewer than 8 Democrats are quoted.

Now we both know that if parties were reveresed, the Times would have gone out of its way to highlight quotes from Democrats blasting a Republican speaker who had failed in her first act of leadership, but not here. There is no doubt that such quotes from Democrats would have brutally ripped a Republican speaker and even gone so far as to misrepresent the significance of this defeat for political gain. But the Times has effectively kept the coverage of this Pelosi defeat between Democrat colleagues of the Speaker.

There is no balance in this story, and it certainly appears that the Times is trying to minimize the damage of this defeat by keeping the conversation only between Democrats. I'm not arguing that that failure is being covered up or excused, but I am arguing that the damage is being controlled by keeping Republicans out of it. That certainly appears to be unfair, lazy, slanted, or all of the above.

-------------------------------------------------
UPDATE
-------------------------------------------------

So how pervasive is the bias problem in the old media? If you read the bottom of this Times story you see the sources Times reporters pulled from in crafting this masterpeice, including The Baltimore Sun, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and McClatchy Newspapers (that owns a bunch of other papers). Well I took a quick look at the Sun, Post and LA Times curious whether the Seattle Times had employed one of it tactics where they simply cut out from other stories what they don't want their readers to see.

It was the Washington Post that was the principal source for the quotes.

Apparently the Seattle Times was not alone in its decision not to quote any Republicans, because neither the Baltimore Sun, Washington Post, or LA Times bothered to talk to a single Republican in their stories either.

So how pervasive does the bias appear in the old media looking at this one story?

But then again maybe I am missing the point. I never studied journalism. Maybe it is a taught journalistic practice to apply a different standard of reporting based on political affiliation and not "bias" at all? That would certainly explain why liberal reporters and editors so easily deny being biased.

Or maybe it's exactly what it looks like!

Silver Linings

From a 2008 presidential perspective the blowout on election night may not all be bad news. Now the Democrats will have to fight their natures to tax, spend and focus on anti-Bush policies that would really push this nation in the wrong direction. More importantly, seeing Democrats back in a position where they actually have to propose legislation and adopt it is going to lift the veil they have been hiding under in their anti-Bush obstruction agenda since 2000.

If conservatives really want the American people to see who these Democrats are, and in such a way that not even a biased liberal media can cover it up, we are about to get the real contrast between the parties coming into the 2008 presidential election. All of those Americans that voted against Republicans without caring who they were replacing them with are about to get a clear view of the liberal agenda from the Congress from both barrels!

The Seattle Times at it again, this time excusing and giving cover to John Kerry

UPDATE - 10:45 AM

Okay, the original slanted story is now gone from the Seattle Times website. Both the original link and the archive link have been pointed to different stories. The search engine cannot locate the original.

Good thing I saved it myself, or I'd be wondering whether it ever really existed.

It's also too bad that the Times can't delete it from the 200,000 printed papers circulated today, but then they don't bias their coverage by accident.

UPDATE - 9:15 AM

The Times has apparently moved the article off its webpage and replaced it already. What is very interesting, though, is that the new story has the same link as the old story did, and the old story is now an archived story found here:
GOP rips Kerry over Iraq quote; he comes firing back

Did the Times get slammed already this morning for such a biased and apologetic report on Kerry's remarks?

But why would the times give the new story the URL for the original story? That is a very interesting decision.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Leave it to the Seattle Times to spin, distort and excuse a grotesque statement by John Kerry into something far different than what was actually said. For those that continue to insist that there is no bias in the media, look at the first paragraph in this story printed in and authored by the Seattle Times:
GOP rips Kerry over Iraq quote; he comes firing back

John Kerry’s remarks, suggesting that those that don’t take advantage of education will “get stuck in Iraq, was an assault on the intelligence of the men and women who volunteer to serve in the United States military. They were also the statements made by a person who returned his own medals more than three decades ago after alleging that all servicemen in Vietnam engaged in war crimes.

But instead on focusing on the remark, the Times jumps immediately into spin mode to help out Kerry and place his comments into a more excusable context:

“Frustration over the prolonged Iraq conflict exploded Tuesday as Republicans pounced on a remark by Sen. John Kerry a night earlier, and the Democrat slammed back at President Bush's "broken policy."

In the first sentence the Times places Kerry’s repugnant comments into a context of the “frustration” over the “prolonged” Iraq conflict. The Times then finishes up that first sentence quoting Kerry’s charge of Bush’s “broken policy” in Iraq before even printing what Kerry said that has ignited the firestorm.

Here is a message for the editors at the Times. Kerry was not attacking Bush with his comment. He was attacking the men and women serving in the military. He didn’t correct his statement and only alleged that it was a botched joke hours after he had come under fire. He even refused to apologize for the statement and tried to blame it all on some right-wing conspiracy. It is no stretch that he meant every word when you consider the disdain for the military that he has displayed since he wounded himself after 4 months in Vietnam, and started his own efforts to undermine that war and the men and women who were serving in it.

Imagine an article beginning like this when the Foley scandal broke:

“Frustration over the loneliness of being a gay politician exploded Tuesday as Democrats pounced on flirtatious emails from Mark Foley from 3 years ago, and Foley slammed back at the Democrat’s “total hypocrisy” in matters of child molestation.”

How many laughs would such a start to the Foley scandal have garnered?