From the Washington Post
About Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
A MENTOR, ROLE MODEL AND HEROINE OF FEMINIST LAWYERS (June 15, 1993)
QUICK CONFIRMATION OF GINSBURG SOUGHT - CLINTON, SENATORS OPTIMISTIC ON COURT NOMINEE (June 16, 1993)
About Stephen Breyer:
A MODERATE PRAGMATIST - NOMINEE WIDELY ADMIRED IN LEGAL CIRCLES (May 14, 1994)
BREYER: PRAGMATIC LAWYER AND JUDGE - SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS KNOWN AS IMPARTIAL CONSENSUS-BUILDER (June 27, 1994)
About John Roberts:
Democrats Say Nominee Will Be Hard to Defeat (July 21, 2005)
While I don't presume to have found every single headline regarding Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, I think it's safe to say that the Post would have never allowed the opposition party's talking points to dictate its coverage of Clinton's nominees. However, yesterday, that's exactly what the paper did for Presdent Bush's nominee.
Remember, when you look at that Post's masthead that it's an "independent" newspaper. Yeah, right.
You picked out on process article about Roberts, and represented it as a profile; meanwhile you neglected the Post's profile article about Roberts ("Nominee Excelled as an Advocate Before Court: Roberts Is Noted For His Preparation And Persuasiveness") which was very complimentary, and you neglected the process articles about Breyer and Ginsburg.
And you say the newspaper is biased?
sigh. Super media critisim as always SD.
Posted by: DovBear at July 24, 2005 05:19 PMI used one "process" headlne from Ginsburg's appointment. I did not find one from Breyer's. I don't deny that there were positive profiles of Roberts. But I can't imagine an adversarial "process" article written about a Democratic nominee. As usual you read simply what you want to read.
Posted by: David Gerstman at July 24, 2005 05:57 PMBecause the Post tilts to the left, does that mean it is not independent?
I trust the Post over the Moonie paper anyday.
Posted by: Citizen Baba at July 28, 2005 08:54 PM