I haven't seen the real-paper version of Wednesday's LA Times,
and I am ASSUMING that an editor had sense enough not to let
this article see the real light of day (as opposed to the
light of cyberspace), but still, whoever allowed this to be put
up even "just" on the web has so little sense of objectivity, or
scale or balance or neutral reading of basic facts, that he or
she doesn't belong anywhere near the "straight news" side of a
respectable newsroom. This was, apparently, the first full report
on the Times web site on Tuesday night (after midnight Wednesday
morning Eastern time, in other words well after the results were
all in) about the election scene nationwide. And yes, the
headline says the BIGGEST news is that the Dems won congressional
victories in (blue) California and (blue) New York.
This must be the first time, EVER, that two House races have been
given precedence over two major governor's races, in a national
political roundup of a major paper for a city that didn't feature
any of the races. And, lemme see, how again is it that a
4,000-vote margin in a purple district with all sorts of
anomalies is more noteworthy than a 100,000-vote margin for
governor of a major blue state going red?
Only in the TENTH paragraph of the story does this report get
around to mentioning that "meanwhile," as in oh-by-the-way,
Republicans won the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey. And
in Virginia, well, the report makes sure to place the "proper"
perspective on it: "In Virginia, McDonnell's victory was no
surprise. A stronger, more polished candidate than Deeds, he had
history on his side: Virginia voters have not elected a governor
from the same party as the president in more than 30 years. The
election was fought mainly over local issues; more jobs and
better roads. McDonnell did his best to hug the middle,
downplaying his conservative social views."
That's rich. After lovingly describing a supposedly epochal
Republican split in New York, this article finally talks about
the biggest landslide in VA history, and downplays it as "no
surprise" with "history on his side" and not on national issues
but mainly local ones, and McDonnell hugged the middle while
hiding his conservatism. Yeah, right.
And in New Jersey, it was just a battle of two unpopular
candidates, in a state that usually just "leans" Democratic. No
national significance there at all: Christie "refrained from any
criticism of Obama."
Oh -- and back to the Hoffman race. Scozzafava supposedly
withdrew because of right-wing concern about abortion and gay
marriage. Well, yes. But not a word, in the LA Times, about
conservative disagreement with her on card check, ACORN, the
stimulus package, taxes,.... etc etc etc etc etc etc etc......
Just us intolerant social Inquisitioners here, dontcha know.
But of course, the establishment media isn't biased. They assure
us of that all the time.
