Rick Klein of the Boston Globe reveals very well the liberal bias of the mainstream media in this slanted article.  Note first of all that NARAL is described as an "abortion rights group".  The first thing that catches the eye is the idea of abortion as a right.  Next, People for the American Way and Human Rights Campaign are described simply as "groups".  OK, but wait, Family Research Council is described later in the article as a "conservative group".  So NARAL and PFAW are just groups but FRC is a conservative group.  Right.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/27/naral_airs_new_tv_ad_blasting_roberts/

     This story has everything—“unnamed sources,” talkative white house “insiders,” “unidentified presidential aides,” and “speculating” psychiatrists.  What article would be complete without visual aids?  Neatly tucked in amongst the “startling revelations” is a picture of a very young-looking George W. Bush, flashing the middle-finger salute.  The only problem is, the picture was taken when Bush was the Governor of Texas and is cut from a video, when seen in its entirety, is clearly meant as a joke.   

Today’s New York Post (27 August) carries a story by Niles Lathem entitled “Military ‘Spied’ on Rice.” The good news is that the story ran at all. The bad news is the reporter demonstrated a brass-plated ignorance of how the Able Danger program operated.

The lede from this article says, “Cyber-sleuths working for a Pentagon intelligence unit that reportedly identified some of the 9/11 hijackers before the attack were fired by military officials, after they mistakenly pinpointed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other prominent Americans as potential security risks....”

Able Danger is/was a computer program which does not target or “pinpoint” or “spy” on anyone. The very use of these verbs demonstrates a gross failure to understand Able Danger, and why it is a very powerful investigative tool. To use an example every reporter is well aware of, consider Google News.

Harlingen, Texas, August 24, 2005: It really doesn’t matter what news service or publication you pick up. The drone of defeatism moans on and on. In this case it was CNN.com on August 18, 2005. - At Least 43 Killed, 88 Wounded in ‘Coordinated Attacks’ reads the headline. The article reports on a string of car bombings in central Baghdad. “The blasts came as transitional government officials worked to complete the new constitution.”

A paragraph later the story continues, “A car bomb exploded outside the al-Nahda bus terminal. A second car bomb exploded 10 minutes later.” But, we can almost recite the news article without seeing it in print. Like the majority of filings from Iraq, this was more bombs and bodies, created from information picked up at the daily news briefing.

The Washington Post's lead editorial, "The War's Momentum," essentially focuses on the continuing delays in Iraq's forming of a draft Constitution.  The Post first states:  "There is no cause for despair, or for abandoning the basic U.S. strategy in Iraq, which is to support the election of a permanent national government and train security forces capable of defending it with continuing help from American troops."

NewsBusters readers were amused at the idea of liberal bias in the Washington Post sports section, so for a little weekend fun, let's revisit a couple of examples of wild editorializing in strange places in the newspaper. In 2003, this New York Times quote earned a Runner-Up mention in our Best of Notable Quotables with this memorable clip from an article on Norway's seafood:  

“If you see a whole monkfish at the market, you’ll find its massive mouth scarier than a shark’s. Apparently it sits on the bottom of the ocean, opens its Godzilla jaws and waits for poor unsuspecting fishies to swim right into it, not unlike the latest recipients of W’s capital-gains cuts.” – Food writer Jonathan Reynolds in a July 27, 2003 New York Times Magazine article...

Tired of whiny CNN boss Jonathan Klein complaining about Fox News wins the ratings race with "meaningless nonsense"? MediaBistro's blog Fishbowl NY revealed how Jon Stewart showed Klein "you live in a big, shining glass house."

Alan Greenspan “might well be the best central banker who ever lived.” That statement, from the August 26 New York Times, reflects the attitude of even most Greenspan critics – except for the Times.

The Times looked back on the Greenspan tenure as Federal Reserve Chairman by emphasizing a threatened “housing bubble” that Greenspan doesn’t even believe in. Reporter Edmund L. Andrews characterized a Fed chairman washing his hands of a looming threat. If “housing prices do turn out to be a bubble that bursts,” said Andrews, “Mr. Greenspan will no longer be around to take the blame – or clean up the mess.”

The article, “The Doctrine Was Not to Have One,” described Greenspan as a classic free market supporter who has been wildly successful in his job. Rather than emphasize that, Andrews undercut him as a man “leaving a brilliant record but a murky legacy.” The problem? The fact that it will be difficult for a successor who “faces a near-impossible task in replicating Mr.Greenspan’s success in managing monetary policy,” said Andrews.

Many of the more than 2,000 words were devoted to talk of a looming housing bubble. But a quick search of the Times’ own archive shows that Greenspan disagrees with that entire premise. In a May 31 piece, he explained the situation. “Mr. Greenspan acknowledged that housing prices showed signs of ‘froth.’ Though he remained skeptical about the existence of a nationwide housing bubble, he said there were signs of ‘lots of little bubbles’ in particular local markets.”

Despite that, Andrews hammered home “the potential bubble in housing prices today.” In an article that was far from complimentary, he added: “But for all his triumphs, Mr. Greenspan also presided over a stock market bubble that burst and, in helping minimize the damage from that fiasco, laid the groundwork for the housing boom – and potential bust – that followed.”

Buried in the piece were a few key points about the Greenspan tenure: