Earnest mainstream media reporters express amazement that conservatives find them biased. Not us! You must mean the editorial pages! Just callin’ ’em like we seem ’em. Well that is the problem, namely that they see the world through blue-colored glasses, never explaining why the errors, omissions, obsessions and inaccuracies routinely fall in one direction.
The onslaught of negative attacks in supposedly “news” reports describing Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) as too pushy, aggressive and outspoken. (What is next — “uppity”?) Oddly none describe Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) as “shrill.”
The lack of interest in what the president was doing on the night of the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi, Libya, attacks, which is highlighted by multiple interviews in which no reporter asked him about it.
The dearth of serious coverage of the long-term unemployed and the new poor. (Contrast that to the cottage industry in homelessness coverage in the Reagan administration.)
The failure to query the president directly about the White House’s authorship of the sequester and/or to report on how and why it was formulated. (If not for Bob Woodward, this would be the best kept secret in Washington, D.C.)
I’ve argued that as a strategic matter it is bad for conservative candidates to complain about unfair coverage. And I have heard mainstream media figures defensively argue that the media is held in such low repute that its coverage doesn’t affect elections. (To paraphrase Woody Allen, it is not that they aren’t biased; it’s just that they are underachievers.) None of these really get to the nub of the matter: Competition from new media and their old media peers has not improved mainstream media coverage nor corrected its leftward tilt.