October 30, 2006
It's in the P-I New York Times

Today's P-I (sorry, it's the New York Times. The latter's ever-falling standards had me confused) has an article about Bellevue and the 8th District: "Liberal Republican Suburb Turns Furious With G.O.P.". The article is mostly notable for its exemplary liberal bias. But first, the sloppy reporting! It quotes "Pia and Bong Bernadino, who moved here in 2002 from New Jersey"

This year, as always, they are voting for candidates "with a strong family orientation," Mr. Bernadino said ... To their delight, the ballot they received in the mail this year had translations in seven languages, including their native Tagalog. "This is paradise, the land of opportunity," Ms. Bernadino said of Bellevue.
Oops. Their name is spelled Bernardino. They do have a Bellevue address, but I doubt they're Bellevue voters. They're not registered to vote in the state of Washington, at least not under any last name that includes "Bernardino" or "Bernadino". Tagalog ballots? I don't think so. King County issues ballots in English and Chinese, but not Tagalog.

As far as bias, the reporter catalogs all the complaints that her 8th District interviewees have with the GOP.

Mr. Schuler abhors what he sees as a new Republican habit of meddling in private affairs.

"The Schiavo case ... And this year, one issue incenses them above all others: restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.

For all the interest in these issues, the reporter fails to mention that Bellevue's Republican Congressman, Dave Reichert, went against the GOP majority on these issues, voting against federal involvement in the Schiavo case and for stem cell research. That information would seem relevant here, unfortunately it would also derail the narrative flow of the article, so I guess they had to leave it out.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 30, 2006 09:15 PM | Email This
Comments
1. That's interesting Stefan. I sometimes wonder about reporting and journalistic standards in the region. Of concern is this article in today's Seattle Times, and how newspapers - both the print and web versions - are to make a go of it financially. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003331085_webcirculation30.html).

Is a one newspaper town really that healthy? I can't say I agree all the time with newspaper editorials, yet I often wonder if one news outlet - the Times and PI under the JOA - really gives complete coverage in things "newsworthy."

The King County Journal, with a circulation encompassing much of the 8th District, apparently is not financially viable under it's current business model. Is the future in electronic versions of the traditional newspaper? Much like a one-party state, a one-newspaper-town is troubling.

Posted by: Jim on October 30, 2006 09:57 PM
2. While the thought of a one-newspaper-town is a worry, I'm not really worried about it. If/when the PI folds another entity will replace it if the market deems it necessary. If not then the Times will "own" what market is left, but really the market is small since a majority of the populace receive most if not almost all their news from other sources than the paper.

When the PI folds, I can see the TNT filling a big portion of that market.

Posted by: Dengle on October 30, 2006 10:03 PM
3. I can never really take these people seriously.

Posted by: Michele on October 30, 2006 10:19 PM
4. Great Story Shark,

I wrote the author of this NY Times this morning picking out the same hypocrissy. Saying that if this district is so mad at Republicans then why are they going to choose the better of the two candidates, The Republican Dave Reichert. This is with the same front page article saying that some Democrats are moving to the right. (not in this state) Then the NY Times makes no mention of the Dave Reichert's moving to the left.....Absolutly the most Liberal of biases are shown with these articles...Unfortunate that a paper deserves this, but they need to fire everyone and start over.

Posted by: Andrew Roberts on October 30, 2006 10:50 PM
5. Jim,

The two papers we have now are terrible. There is no benefit to being a two newspaper town, at least here. I can't wait for both the Times and P-I to fold. Both are awful.

Posted by: AP on October 31, 2006 12:19 AM
6. I have a hard time believing that millions and millions of Americans are just furious about the fact that the Federal Government isn't funding new lines of embryonic stem cell research.

This state is funding multi-millions in somatic cell transfer embryo stem cell research. California is funding it and I think Kerry & Kennedy's Kool-Aid state is too!

How many billions thrown into this risky research will make these people happy?

Posted by: sgmmac on October 31, 2006 01:01 AM
7. I must beg to differ AP in that while I think that coverage in some areas is lacking, and
editorial bias - what topics or articles are selected or excluded - is apparent, editorial
bias makes for interesting newspapers. In that differing perspectives are offered on
different events - often the same events - distinguishes one news outlet from the next,
as well as offering alternatives to main stream media.

I for example am of the view that global warming is in fact a problem and the burning of
fossil fuels, if not the cause, is at least greatly contributing to the problem. Further,
it is as much a business opportunity as a very difficult international problem. I would
then differ slightly with Congressman Reichert in his understanding of the issue, and
among other things view this as an item used politically by his opponents.

What has this to do with newspapers? It simply illustrates that people naturally have
a perspective or bias that is actually enlightening, without regard to my particular
view on global warming. Newspaper editors I'm told are people too :), and I'm sure they
bring their own knowledge and bias to their tasks. The readership - both on the ink and paper
and web versions - will have to decide if it's worth reading.

Posted by: Jim on October 31, 2006 02:32 AM
8. person or persons in the Buner campaign have done a brillant job on media ..... winners indeed

sir sheriff with the patrician looks has flubbed .... upset in the works

this is not a class in theory .... but what the street can deliver. and Buner has done well, very well ... and that is how elections are won

sorry dave .... rove will take care of you .... paid advisor on homeland security in unicorporated/sorta rural american areas maybe

or just wellpaid boards in banking, insurance and pseudo science .... can keep the old lady and cats fed, i am sure

Posted by: JackA on October 31, 2006 03:33 AM
9. Beg to differ jacka. Durner has done a pathetic job. She won't even get out into the community that she would ostensibly represent. Her series of missteps have been glossed over or ignored.

Unlike some who would choose to demonize her in their fervor to support their side, I don't buy any of the Hilliary-esque shrill harpy attributions as a disqualification. I do buy her complete lack of experience. She would have done well to take on an introductory position to prove her worth.

Now I will admit that she may actually prevail in this contest. The Dhimmicrat machine has obviously invested heavily in making this happen (with whomever as a candidate). But it will be pure partisanship that accomplishes the task, not Durner.

BTW: Your closing comments reveal you to be more of a jackaSS but that's OK too...

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 31, 2006 12:11 PM
10. Prediction: On election night, Richert will prevail (probably by quite a bit) and the local MSM will portray his win as a "surprise" or "unexpected" in an effort to gloss over their own bias.

Posted by: G Jiggy on October 31, 2006 12:24 PM
11. People in the Philippines read and write English as well as Tagalog, so I guess it was in their "native language"....

Posted by: H Moul on October 31, 2006 12:49 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?