Posted by Ron Coleman on February 18, 2008
Taylor Marsh reprints a frank Margaret Carlson email, in which she just plain acknowledges she hasn’t much use for the Junior Senator. (Via Insty.) Marsh takes this as an admission of media bias; I just don’t see it. In fact, if Carlson claimed she had no political preferences, I’d be suspicious, but here she’s just being honest. How is this proof that she’s gunning for Hillary in her work?
I once got a similar email from Margaret’s soulmate, Helen Thomas, myself. I asked her why she had referred to President Bush as having “lied” in some column or another. She promptly and honestly responded that of course Bush had lied to trick us into going to war in Iraq.
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 5:18 PM
Subject: Bush lied?
You maintain several times in your article that President Bush deceived the
U.S. and based his policy on falsehoods. What are these falsehoods?
Ronald D. Coleman
From: Helen <email@example.com>
To: ‘Ronald D. Coleman’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Aug 23 2004 – 1:24pm
No wmd; no threat; no ties to al qaida – helent
It puts Thomas among the moonbats to say that, but she has plenty of company, and much of that in newsrooms; and is it any surprise that that’s her view? This doesn’t prove that her reporting is biased… for that you have to actually read the columns. I didn’t even blog about the email because it struck me as a “dog bites man” story.
I’ll take Carlson’s frankness and Thomas’s tinfoil-hatted honesty over the pretense of objectivity any day.
But I wonder how offended Marsh would be by Thomas’s email to me? Or does it matter less because, after all, that doesn’t constitute treason from the political line, or appropriate political gender loyalty?