When I announced last week that I was leaving ABC for Fox, some readers complained about my "bias." I replied: "Every reporter has political beliefs. The difference is that I am upfront about mine."
Refreshing. John makes some great points about reporting bias that I'm sure most reporters wouldn't see as bias:
The New York Times took its bias to an absurd length. Its page-one story on the big anti-big-government rally in Washington, D.C., referred to "protests that began with an opposition to health care. ..."
Apparently, in the Times reporter's and editors' view, opponents of the Obama health care plan oppose health care itself. (The online article was later changed.)
. . .
Most reporting on the "stimulus" package has the same flaw. Just to call it "stimulus" is to editorialize, since the idea that government spending can truly stimulate an economy is at best doubtful. Many good economists say it can't be done. After all, the money is taken from somewhere else. But the economists rarely are quoted.
In addition, reporters seem to think they've done their job if they merely describe the intentions behind the proposed "reform." But the burden of proof should be on the sponsors of regulation and spending. They should have to make a convincing case that their new rules are superior to the free market. Who cares about intentions?
I think a lot of people have forgotten that last part. The burden of proof for any proposal is on the one proposing it, not on the opposition.
Kind of like Presbo saying, "My plan . . ." when discussing healthcare reform (whoops - change). Mr. President, besides cramming whatever garbage congress comes up with down our collective throat, what is your plan?