::::::::
I have noticed that the Washington Post has been trending toward some level of criticism of the Bush Administration, especially since the election mandate, but the even more sluggish and procrustean NY Times still remains in a pre-November 7th mindset. As a perfect example, I note how both brontosaurian establishments described the announcement that Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa was running for president as a Democrat in the 2008 election.First, the Post's headline:
Wash Post 11/30/06
Vilsack Running for President
-Iowa governor criticizes President Bush, calls for changes in energy and foreign policies.
And now the headline from the once-estimable Times:
NY Times 11/30/06
First Democrat Joins White House Race
-Tom Vilsack's candidacy could charitably be called an uphill climb.
Now ask yourself - which headline provides information, and which provides slanted opinion? Does the NY Times headline mention which state Governor Vilsack is from, or that he is the Governor? Does it mention anything about what he is calling for, or his criticism of President Bush?
Of course not. That would be informative, rather than anti-liberal, inflammatory rhetoric.
In their desperate attempt to not be liberal... indeed to be anti-liberal, the NY Times will continue for some time to fret more over Nancy Pelosi's wardrobe, and John Kerry's jokes than over the incendiary Mid-East policies of the Bush administration. They seem to still be in some sort of Judy Miller induced trance incapable of recognizing that the country has rejected the Republican's so-called agenda, and is crying out for drastic change.
