Another reason to mistrust the Washington Post

[vaherder]

New York Times is way further to the left then the Post.

Post has always had a liberal bias going back to the mid 60's at least.

Most journalist be they on TV or in print dont have a clue at that includes many at Fox news and Business especially Neil Whats his Name. They have never had held real jobs. So instead of doing or teaching they write and talk about other failures. They all want to write for NYT or post or be on CNN or CBS so they develop the necessary biases do achieve that goal. If they ant to appear on Fox they just tilt right.

Remember Federal LE is scarier then local LE. Read about NCI during Tailhook and rememebr they did not get arrest authority in CONUS until the early 2000's.

Solution to the drug problem is legalize mj and tax it.

A biased media is nothing new in this country. Read the NYT or the WP right before WWII or a major newspaper right before and during the Civil War.

BTW Hunter is former Postie.

 

[JohnBT]

"Post has always had a liberal bias going back to the mid 60's at least."

I started reading the Washington Post every day in 1962. They really had a liberal bias back then. The last 20 years or so not so much. They aren't quite neutral, but they certainly aren't the leftist-leaning wackos they used to be. I'm not just talking guns, but finance, politics, drugs, etc.

 

[JohnBT]

"BTW Hunter is former Postie."

That's why I mentioned it earlier. Imagine that, a gun guy working for the W.Post.

"The one who wrote his first gun book in 1980 iirc and who worked for the Post for 11 years and retired a few years ago." - me, post #11 in this thread

 

[JustinJ]

"I've been told that the liberal media lies. I know this to be true because they say things that contradict what I know to be true from my trusted media sources."

Please tell me that was meant to be ironic.

Seriously, what on earth is bias about that article? Next i'm going to her Sara Palin's Paul Rever comment's are CNN's fault.

 

[feedthehogs]

Another person who's husbands mental illness and resulting death from it blames the instrument of his death. You can bet if he had drank himself to death she wouldn't have crusaded against the booze industry.

She died in 01, so the kids still carry on her tradition.

 

[Neverwinter]

"I've been told that the liberal media lies. I know this to be true because they say things that contradict what I know to be true from my trusted media sources."

Please tell me that was meant to be ironic.

Seriously, what on earth is bias about that article? Next i'm going to her Sara Palin's Paul Rever comment's are CNN's fault.

Since someone has already called me out for satire, I'll admit that those posts were not meant seriously.

But contrast it with some of the other opinions in this thread like "I don't trust the media whatsoever. In my experiences they lie and when they are wrong they do not admit it. They just stop talking about the subject and hope everyone FORGETS but I do not forget because I pay serious attention to what they say. I have lost trust and faith in the media myself." If these people don't trust the media, where are they getting their information? Do they do their own investigations into the subjects being discussed? Maybe they are in contact with the events and people that are being reported on. Do they accept other forms of media, but don't count those as media because their concept of media excludes sources that they agree with and are comfortable with? That concept is reinforced with the phrase of "Even a broken clock is right twice a day." in which distrusted sources are permitted to confirm their beliefs, despite never being able to refute the same.

Maybe those people will come forth and confirm their posts as satire.

 

[Nushif]

Internal consistency is for noobs.

That being said I don't see much "liberal bias" in the post ... Anything that is a business magazine by definition can only lean so far left.

 

[kozak6]

Can we get back on topic?

Where is the liberal bias in the original post? Why is it another reason to mistrust the Washington Post?

All of this "rah rah rah worthless evil liberal rag" business doesn't go anywhere.

 

[Sam1911]

what is it in that article thats got folks panties knotted? its not anti nor is it inaccurate or inflammatory.

Exactly. i read the article several times and fail to see what all the excitement is about.

Can we get back on topic?

Where is the liberal bias in the original post? Why is it another reason to mistrust the Washington Post?

Very good point. Even the NRA press release quoted by the OP doesn't attack the WP, only re-tells the story they reported, as illustrative that it supports OUR side.

The title of this thread seems quite incorrect. The original article doesn't mention -- at all -- guns coming from the US, or even mention the US at all, except as a destination for drugs.

Look at yourselves! The number of posters here who chimed in -- OBVIOUSLY not having read the article -- is surprising, even though I'd have believed myself to be inured to outrage over that kind of laziness. Knee-jerk, bandwagon reationism sure makes us look smart. *sigh*