I just read the opinion page of the Arizona Repulsive and was struck by the blatant hypocrisy that runs through all of the commentary.
I would think the authors might make some lame attempt at hiding overt bias and immovable prejudice, but I suppose when your audience agrees 100% with your viewpoint it is unnecessary. (Or you have no audience, like this blog.)
We truly will be reduced to only slanted media in the future: popular right wing hysterical outlets such as AM radio and FOX, giant corporate-friendly enterprises like CNN and the big 3, objective niche players like NPR and Frontline; and finally the tiny left-leaning outlets like NOW with Bill Moyers, which probably gives ten times as much airtime to neocons as Dennis Miller does to libs.
But here are some snippets from a column by CK Rairden (a fellow Arizonan, big "surprise"). Now, it's an opinion piece, so he gets free reign, right? In my book, you are free to express whatever opinion you want, but if it's hypocrisy isn’t at least subtle, the readers are free to disregard your point.
The piece is about Sandy Berger's behavior with classified documents in the National Archives. Whatever your opinion on that incident, check out how he "frames" the debate.
The GOP struck quickly with some pointed observations.
Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) chimed in ...
Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) also were in front of cameras speculating
Democrats struck back with their spin
most telling of the spin came from the master himself
Mr. Clinton opened with the talking point
Kerry spokesman Phil Singer chimed in with the Democrat talking points as well
Hey, this blog of mine is filled with diatribes against what the Republicans are doing to this country (and by the way, even Greenspan half-heartedly admits it!) But I guarantee you the Repulsive would never publish such a one-sided piece (where knuckle-draggers like Santorum only chime and have "pointed observations", but libs spin with their talking points) from the left point of view.