October 28, 2004


My wife and I had been discussing cancelling the NY Times for some time. Though it has some very good reporting the bias had really started to wear on us. Finally the other day,my wife had it. She heard on the Liddy Show how the Times unfairly blamed the administration for missing explosives in Iraq. Sen Kerry immediately seized upon this "news" to launch new attacks against the President's running of the war. It was as if the Times had become the chief propagandist for the Kerry campaign.
My wife cancelled by calling and complaining about the bias. It appears that the Times is oblivious to its rank partisanship.
We plan to start getting the Washington Post. It's just as liberal but slightly less partisan. In its editorial on the subject, the Post makes clear that it feels that the administration went to war with two few troops, but in the end seems to buy the administration's version. Alas it seems to deflect blame from the Times simply to place it on Mohamed ElBaradei. But ElBaradei's bad behavior doesn't excuse the Times. They should have been a lot harder on the Times. Despite that the Post clearly has more credibility. Plus my boys say it has a better sports section!

Posted by SoccerDad at October 28, 2004 04:04 AM | TrackBack

learn to spell

Posted by: sally at October 28, 2004 11:49 AM

Soccer Dad:

Tell Sally that I got the essence of your thought irrespective of any minor misspelling
(I'm certain that I've probably misspelled
the word "misspelled").

I doubt that newspapers will ever change their
bias due to people cancelling their subscriptions because they are preaching to the
choir that loves hearing what they're hearing.
The truth be damned!

I've gone strictly to the internet for my news.
It has its own version of the truth detectors>

Posted by: Tim Gordon at October 28, 2004 12:12 PM

Soccer Dad,
The Wall Street Journal is the only readable newspaper.Try it for six months, there's always news in it.

Posted by: fred edwards at October 29, 2004 01:32 PM