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.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.