Follow by Email

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Washington Post Ombudsman Also Acknowledges His Newspaper's Liberal Bias

Almost a month ago, Arthur Brisbane, the departing public editor of The New York Times published his final column ( in which he stated:

"When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so. Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times."

"Progressivism," i.e. left leaning bias, "bleeds through the fabric of The Times"? Who would have ever imagined?

Now, Patrick Pexton, the ombudsman of The Washington Post is also acknowledging his newspaper's inclinations (

"One aspect of The Post that particularly irks conservatives is the columnists who appear in print and online in news positions (as opposed to those on the editorial and op-ed pages and the online Opinions section). With the exception of Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza, who cover politics in a nonpartisan way, the news columnists almost to a person write from left of center.

. . . .

Is it any wonder that if you’re a conservative looking for unbiased news — and they do; they don’t want only Sean Hannity’s interpretation of the news — that you might feel unwelcome, or dissed or slighted, by the printed Post or the online version? And might you distrust the news when it’s wrapped in so much liberal commentary?

. . . .

The Post should first be about news without slant. If The Post wants to wrap its news in commentary, fine, but shouldn’t some of those voices then be conservative?"

Me? I also value balance, and first and foremost seek news from newspapers. Yes, The Washington Post is not balanced, but in its defense, it also provides the views of Kathleen Parker, Jennifer Rubin, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Michael Gerson and Marc Thiessen.

The New York Times, on the other hand, has been transmogrified into the unofficial mouthpiece of the Obama administration, and my guess is that it will pay the "ultimate price," i.e. Chapter 11, for politicization at the expense of reporting the news. Maybe George Soros will buy out the company for pennies on the dollar.

By the way, in his above-referenced opinion piece, Patrick Pexton also refers to the "progressive perspective" of various WaPo writers, whose opinions regularly appear on The Post's front page.

Sorry, but what is this talk about "political progressivism"? If most or all conservatives are referred to as "neocons," why is it that liberals or those from the radical left must be referred to as "progressives"? (Despite that fact that I am pro-choice, advocate immediate withdrawal of US ground forces from Afghanistan, and favor gay marriage and gun control involving assault rifles, I am also routinely labeled a neo-con by angry readers of this blog. Yes, I know, I am critical of the One.)

Today, is it forbidden to use the word "liberal"?

It was less than a year ago that Nobelist Paul Krugman of The New York Times wrote (

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

"Liberal," "progressive," "nihilistic" or "revolutionary"? You decide.

1 comment:

  1. Nihilist, eh? I wonder if Arthur O. Sulzberger passed away before or after he read your post?