How Howard Kurtz Facilitates Media Bias
I’ve highlighted before how Howard Kurtz – self-appointed media expert / critic – exposes his bias in how he attempts to “fairly” evaluate the media. If you’ve read or watched his work, you’ll know that he’s big on smug and invariably tries to play the “both sides do it” game even though we all know that one side does it more than the other.
In fact, Erick Erickson over at RedState.com shows us how Kurtz facilitates the lefty bias in the media. Of course, Erick doesn’t explicitly state this. You have to be familiar with Kurtz’s history to see it. Luckily, Kurtz’s website, Daily-Download.com – where Kurtz is an advisor and posts video commentary, gives us a perfect example of how self-appointed “media critics,” who are actually a bunch of Leftists, facilitate the bias we’re trying to combat on a daily basis.
Here’s their article about the case of The Washington Post’s Suzi Parker falling for a satire website’s report:
Is this what the Washington Post has come to? Stooping so low that neither its reporters nor its editors can perform the most basic fact checking?
Parker and the Post made a second egregious mistake: They waited too long. The Currant story was published on February 4. The Post’s story? It published eight days later.
Now, if Sarah Palin was in fact joining Al Jazeera America, don’t you think more news outlets would have picked up on that? Perhaps MSNBC or her old chums at Fox News? Let’s be honest, it’s not as if the Post was sitting on the story for eight days to triple-check the facts.
The gross oversight in editing, the lazy reporting and the utter lack of common sense at the Post is astounding.
In its defense, this is becoming the way of the industry. Major outlets are afraid of getting scooped by lesser known websites, so disseminating news becomes a function of sheer speed and overlooks the journalistic principles that made it one of the most respected newspapers in the world.
But that is no excuse for sloppy reporting.
Notice anything missing?
They’re blaming the entire debacle on “sloppy reporting.” That’s what they think happened here. It doesn’t occur to them that Suzi Parker’s rant about Sarah Palin could have come about because Suzi Parker thinks Sarah Palin would do something like that. That’s not sloppy reporting. That’s bias. That’s Dan Rather and the forged memos. Suzi reported it because it confirmed something she already believed – that Palin would be dumb enough to work for Al Jezeera.
It’s in the title of Parker’s article, for crying out loud: “Sarah Palin Tries to Stay Relevant.”
How did Kurtz’s website miss this? Answer: Because they want to. And in so doing, they help perpetuate the media bias they claim doesn’t exist in any significant way.