I've been reading the Newsweek election articles on-line

and getting quite annoyed.

Is it just me, or is their bias showing. Why do they have JK whining all over the place and looking like an ass. I will be the first to admit my candidate is sometimes a pissy bitch, but I can't imagine he "whined" about Edwards thinking he could be president. And then the reporter mentions that Kerry's staff has stuck with him, only to say in the next sentence that Sen. Kerry is quite generous with them, as if they're only loyal because they're well paid.

He's Rodney Dangerfield I tell ya! His mother had to tie a steak around his neck so the dog would play with him!

So I suppose PeteNYC is getting an Xmas bonus for going around telling us that Kerry's a very good man. Yah sure Pete. We know the score now. :eyes:

I don't normally read Newsweek. Are they like this all the time? I thought I read a pretty good article from them just before the DNC on JK. WTF.

They favor him and attack John Kerry. This makes no sense. And, yes, they show bias by attributing feelings or motives to people that they have no way of knowing or verifying.

Rodney Dangerfield?! ROFL!! Great analogy! It sure does feel that way a lot of the time.

It's interesting that you mentioned articles written just before the DNC. I hadn't seen Senator Kerry very much before the convention, but the articles I read didn't impress me very much. It was the lack of content from the magazines, though, not the candidate. So, I was completely unprepared for how blown away I was by the entire last night of the DNC. All of the speeches, especially John Kerry's, impressed me far beyond anything I had expected. MOSTLY because of my lack of info. from the SCLM. That's when I finally learned to ration my exposure to newspapers, magazines, and TV news and get facts from Internet news services. I can pick up fluff or, worse yet, vapid or opinionated writing anywhere, I don't need to depend on the MSM for news. Their loss, certainly not mine.

especially if it's a Dem. The reporters are largely Dems themselves, and have to compensate for their bias, plus how dare Kerry go out and lose, betraying their high expectations?


I also read in several places that Kerry's pool of reporters didn't like him, yet Kerry and his people treated them well.


This is a little detour, but bear with me. In Vietnam the first American commander after the escalation, William Westmoreland, went out of his way to cultivate the media. He took media members with him on helicopter flights, had frequent press conferences, gave interviews, the whole nine yards.

They ended up crucifying him.


His replacement, Creighton Abrams, generally treated the media like shit, and didn't disguise his contempt for them. They loved him.

Over the past couple of years, I've found myself thinking about that a lot when viewing the way the media have treated Bush. Not just the cable media, because those people are simply whores, but the real journalists. For whatever reason, media people will lick the boot that kicks them.

I read it as him pointing out the fallacy that Kerry's staff was only in it for the money, by sarcastically saying PeteNYC is expecting a good Christmas gift.

Feeling dumb.

Isn't there a thread running through the articles that the reporters didn't feel that Kerry gave them much access to him? That he didn't interact with them much? I read the articles online and also saw a show on C-SPAN with the reporters and that seemed to be a gripe. Anyone else get that same sense?