Memo to the Washington Post: It's spelled D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T

Which has nothing to do with the fact he said the WAPO was worse than anyone else.

 

Well, "worse" is only valid if you believe that not identifying the guy's political affiliation is "bad".

 

When it's not mentioned at all, yes, that's bad.

The fact it WAS mentioned in the AP has nothing to do with it NOT being mentioned in the Washington Post.

 

Well, this certainly evens the score for swallowing the WMD lies whole.

The links in the first post of this thread are not stories. They appear to be blogs/analysis pieces. That's an important distinction to make, and intellectually dishonest that it wasn't.

Here's the lede of the main WP story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/09/AR2008120900987.html

The third paragraph of a sidebar:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/09/AR2008120902746.html

Another sidebar, the lede:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/09/AR2008120902809.html

That took about 20 seconds to compile.

I guess you can make a hell of a case if you only include information that fits your agenda.

 

Analysis pieces aren't stories?

Christ. This is basic journalism. When you write about someone in a position of power, you mention their title and their affiliation. Putting a (D) in each of those, since they're on the WaPo site, is not asking that much.

 

The first poster claimed that the Washington Post has been "pretty blatant" about ignoring the governor's party affiliation.

Which pieces constituted the WP's primary coverage? Which pieces will most WP readers see? Which pieces will be in hundreds of other newspapers around the country via wire service? The ones the linked in the first post, or the ones I linked?

Again, you can make a hell of a case if you only include information that fits your agenda.

 

And I not arguing your overall point. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter if it's the 17th sidebar. It needs to be mentioned.

 

And I won't disagree with that.

The fact that it isn't mentioned doesn't make it liberal bias, though.

 

Yeah, I think even he didn't go full-bore on that one. He couched it with 'or lazy journalism' which is obviously where I'm coming in on it. Doesn't matter if it's R or D...gotta do it.

 

Well that got ugly and personal real fast.

 

However, I doubt you're surprised.

 

Slightly. In one way, that it took so long (some are predictable..not BYH). But also it seemed to have died out and been fine.