Why does this story matter*? So the Washington Post says that most Americans approve of Bush's illegal wiretaps, when most polls show the exact opposite. What's the big deal? Only this - it's merely the latest instance where the second-most important paper in America has misled its readers in ways that politically benefit the Republican Party.
Picture Leonard Nimoy here saying "Coincidence ... or not?," as we review a few some incidents from the Post's recent history:
Blog-gate: When the Post's "ombudsman," falsely stated that Jack Abramoff took money from Democrats, the editors circled the wagons around her. They then stated that Indian tribes gave money to Democrats at Jack Abramoff's direction (despite the absence of evidence for this assertion, and previous history of Indian donations to Democrats). When further challenged, the ombudsman and the Post's website editor raised a fuss over the tone of some comments on their site - and then repeated their allegations, without offering a single shred of evidence to back them up!
Murtha: The Post credulously repeated some Swift-boating comments about John Murtha, but the story failed to gain traction as other outlets recognized the unreliability and bias of the story's "source."
Katrina: In reviewing the President's effectiveness following Katrina, they ran a piece where all but one of the sources quoted were Congressional Republicans.
Alito Endorsement: They endorsed Alito for the Supreme Court and said that judicial nominations should "not be opposed on ideological grounds" - even if they're made for ideological reasons.
Watercooler Bias: Jane Hamsher noted a story that suggests that there is hostility to Post writer Dan Froomkin for being "too liberal," despite the fact that Froomkin's website offerings appear (at least to me) to be unbiased skepticism of authority - which should be a journalist's preferred modus operandi.
Iraq editorial: They misled their readers in order to buttress their editorial position in favor of continued war.
There's more, but you get the drift.
Here's why it matters: When one of the two most powerful newspapers in America repeatedly displays bias in favor of the governing Administration - and is willing to distort the truth to do so - it indicates pernicious bias that undercuts journalistic objectivity. When journalists as a group do not object to this continued behavior, it reflects on the continued decay of their professional integrity in pursuit of naked ambition.
That's why some of us call it press corruption.
(courtesy atrios)