Why no thread when it's Obama being edited or misrepresented? Why no thread when the media fails to pick up on the hypocrisy involved in statements made by Karl Rove, John McCain, members of his campaign team and Palin herself, when they say something now which is the opposite of what they were saying when it came to slighting the Democrats?
Haven't a clue.
When's the last time an Obama interview was dishonestly edited to this degree? In general, I don't whine about liberal bias, but this one seemed over the top.
Honestly, I understand that the sides are going to slam each other -- cover-ups here, flip-flops there, hypocrisy everywhere -- but the US media used to try to be nonpartisan. In the UK, frex, you've got the Telegraph and the Guardian (along with lots of other papers) -- with obvious political leanings. And that's fine. Having the bias open and identified helps people sort through what they're reading. A version of "if it's in Pravda, it must not be true" sort of thing
It's just when they refuse to admit to an obvious bias that it grates.
But, as Terry's reminded me, this ain't nuthin' new. And with alternative media (talk radio, internet, Fox News), a lot more information's getting out there. Some of which is even true.
And you've never been shocked at the breathtakingly outrageous anti-Democrat bias shown nightly on Fox News, I take it?
Of course not. Have you ever been shocked by the breathtakingly outrageous far-left bias on the BBC?
PJ
