Politico recently published a piece accusing the New York Times and Washington Post of being “blatantly” biased in favor of Barack Obama. The piece was odd/wrong/ridiculous on a number of levels, and the masses have begun to make their opinions known to Politico.
Below are excerpts from some of the best responses. Enjoy the righteous anger.
Devin Gordon, GQ:
Politico published this story the day after one of its targets, The Times, published an astonishing expose about President Obama’s personal oversight of a terrorist ‘kill list.’ In what universe is that not vetting? Part of Politico’s argument is that these two media outlets have spent far too much time on the silly stuff about the Romney family, chasing stories that have no bearing on candidate Mitt’s qualifications for office — but then, in the same breath, they ignore the Times when it focuses, exceptionally, relentlessly, on the truly important stuff like Obama’s record on national security.
Michael Calderone, The Huffington Post:
It’s ironic to suggest media bias when it comes to covering Obama’s pot-smoking, considering that [David] Maraniss, a Post editor, is the one who dug up the new revelations for his long-awaited book on Obama’s early years. And thePost didn’t ignore them, running a story on Page 6 of the print edition and online — where the paper also linked to numerous other reports of Obama’s pot-smoking days, including BuzzFeed’s ‘User’s Guide To Smoking Pot With Barack Obama.’
Richard Stevenson, New York Times political reporter:
Since the very first stirrings of the 2008 campaign, the Times has exhaustively and aggressively covered nearly every aspect of Barack Obama’s story. To suggest that we’ve pulled our punches or tilted coverage in his favor or against his opponents just is not supported by the facts.
John Cook, Gawker:
Notwithstanding that this is all demonstrably false, one thing struck me about VandeHei and Allen’s critique: At 5,500 words, they argue, the Post‘s bullying story was ‘invested with far more significance than it merited, and is more voyeuristic than relevant to assessing Romney’s readiness for office.’ OH SO WE’RE ONLY WRITING ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE RELEVANT TO ASSESSING A CANDIDATE’S READINESS FOR OFFICE, ARE WE NOW, POLITICO? Here is a list of stories Politico has published soberly assessing Barack Obama’s readiness for office. [Click through for the fantastic list]
WaPo spokesperson, to HuffPo:
The depth, quality and fairness of our coverage is visible every day to every one of our readers. Assertions of bias just don’t square with the reality of our journalism.