Lott finds some media bias

On his blog Lott reports that he was recently asked by a reporter whether President Bush was evil or just stupid. If a reporter asks a question like that it raises serious questions about her objectivity. How can a reporter with such a negative opinion of the President write unbiased news articles? Seems like a clear case of media bias.

Oops, sorry, I made a mistake it the previous paragraph. The reporter actually asked Lott whether Jimmy Carter was evil or just stupid. Fortunately, the rest of my paragraph is still valid. Lott doesn’t tell us who the biased reporter was, but the one that wrote the Wall Street Journal that quoted Lott and presumably discussed Carter with him was Mary Anastasia O’Grady.

Comments

  1. #1 Thomas Palm
    August 30, 2004

    Seems these rightwing groups are working themselves up to supporting another coup against Chavez.

  2. #2 QrazyQat
    August 30, 2004

    It’s what Jesus would want…

  3. #3 Aaron Swartz
    August 30, 2004

    The question might actually be reasonable in a certain context. If the subject was going on about all the bad things President X has done, then it might make sense to ask evil or stupid to them, even if the reporter didn’t believe it.

  4. #4 ben
    August 31, 2004

    Are you guys for real? Chavez himself tried to take over the government by coup twice in 1992. He should be in jail. It amazes me that you will support ANY leftist, no matter how violent or corrupt. I am aghast.

  5. #5 dsquared
    September 1, 2004

    Given that Chavez went to jail for that coup attempt, served his sentence, and was released, your comment looks slightly as if you don’t know what you’re talking about, Ben.

  6. #6 ben
    September 1, 2004

    whoops, so it does. Still, Chavez looks like he’s trying as hard as he can to become dictator of Venezuela.

  7. #7 Jonathan
    September 1, 2004

    That’s probably true, Ben, and it certainly seems to my mind that the people of Venezuela would be better off with someone else, but the fact of the matter is that those very people have voted for him twice. Do you really think overthrowing democratically elected leaders is a good idea?

  8. #8 ben
    September 1, 2004

    I think that that is the peoples prerogotive. I don’t think we outsiders ought to be involved, generally. But if you have a corrupt leader, one who writes his own constitution to strengthen his grip on power, who seems clearly to be trying to establish a dictatorship, the people of the country have the right to overthrow him.

    Democractically elected does not necessarily equal right. As a clear, and somewhat tired, example; a racist majority could democratically elect a tyrant and they could democratically give him all sorts of power to, say, be really mean to a minority, and that would not make it right. The minority would be perfectly justified in using many means, even violent, to protect themselves and overthrow the tyrant. no?

  9. #9 Aaron Swartz
    September 2, 2004

    A study by the highly-respected Ed Felten and Avi Rubin concludes there is no statistical evidence of fraud.

  10. #10 David Tiley
    September 4, 2004

    Chavez is not using power to oppress a minority in a way that justifies continued public revolt. Certainly not now it has gone to the people twice. The example doesn’t work.

  11. #11 Tom
    September 17, 2004

    I don’t understand this post. Even if the person Lott talked to was Mary Anastasia O’Grady, the discussion was about a columnist so I do not see why lambert labels the person a reporter. Does anyone understand the difference between a reporter and a columnist and whether they are supposed to have opinions? This whole discussion is weird and seems nonsensical.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.