The Democrat Party outlet at Badlands Blue is apparently upset that a little objective reporting slipped through from the Argus Leader.This morning, Pat Powers at the South Dakota War College pointed out that the Argus Leader's report of a congressional clout ranking was a little (I know, hard to believe from the Argus) biased.
The report shows our South Dakota delegation ranked with Rep. Stephanie Herseth at 287th out of 435 in the House, John Thune at 77th out of 100 in the Senate, and Tim Johnson at 90th out of 100 in the Senate.
Now, none of our delegation really has anything to crow about, but notice what the Argus Leader headline this morning originally said: "Study: Thune, Herseth Sandlin lack power in Congress." What about our Senator Tim Johnson, who's facing re-election this year? The implication by the headline: "Senator Johnson? Him? Oh, he's not 'lacking in power,' oh, not at all! No SIR!"
In fact, you have to read down about three paragraphs into the story to find out, gee, Senator Johnson is, um, a little 'lacking in power' in Congress, too. Maybe the MOST lacking of our three? Hmmm. How could the headline have missed this? Couldn't be that imaginary liberal bias, could it? No, not from the Argus Leader, a newspaper above the reproach of bias accusations.
Perhaps most interestingly of all, later in the day the Argus changed the headline to "S.D. delegation lacks power in congress." Now we finally have an accurate, objective headline...even though you still have to read down three paragraphs to find out where Senator Johnson stands, after you've read past the first paragraph telling us about only two members of our three-member delegation (the two which aren't up for re-election, by the way):
Sen. John Thune and Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin wield little power on Capitol Hill, primarily because of their low seniority, according to an annual nonpartisan study.
It's this redo of the headline that has Badlands Blue's underwear in a bunch.
They whine:
Because one right-wing blogger throws a hissy fit? Is that all it takes for the Argus Leader to ditch its journalistic integrity?
Pointing out blatant liberal bias is a "hissy fit?" Using objective wording means "ditch[ing] its journalistic integrity?"
That's usually what you hear from liberals anytime something gets reported accurately (or even close to it), or if a problem in the Democrat Party gets so big that the "mainstream" media can't ignore it anymore. They start whining about "compromising journalistic integrity" (guess what: that train left the station a LONG time ago, headed Left), an imaginary "conservative bias" and try to use any truth that squeezes through as "proof" that there is no liberal bias in the "mainstream" media.
If the Argus Leader would at least acknowledge, "We lean Left, and are going to favor Left," at least we'd getting what was being "advertised." Kudos to the War College and others for holding the "mainstream" media accountable for what they claim to be.
Wouldn't it be nice if liberals and conservatives could just disagree on the issues, without all the misrepresentations and distortions?
Wouldn't it be nice if we really had an objective "mainstream" media, instead of one dominated by liberal mouthpieces for the Democrat Party?
0 comments:
Post a Comment