WHY ARE the opinion pages of big-city American newspapers almost universally liberal? This question inspired a round of journalistic navel-gazing at reason.com (libertarian) and thedailybeast.com (the zombie that once was Newsweek). Our own Houston Chronicle, which seemingly prefers death to the dishonor of having even one genuine traditionalist and conservative on the local opinion payroll, popped up as . . .
THE HOUSTON Chronicle editorial board got it right today. Hugo Chavez, the dead Venezuelan dictator was "a vitriolic socialist ideologue . . . who used his nation's oil wealth to welcome and abet anti-American terrorists the world over."
MY POST of January 26 erroneously accuses Lisa Gray of having keyboarded the nasty little piece of work that was last Saturday's editorial grito for a statue of Bill Hicks. She is, in fact, entirely blameless, as she kindly emailed today:
. . . liberal bias in news reporting at Associated Press and the Houston Chronicle.
Statutory warning. This is a long essay, not for the faint of heart, about a persistent problem in journalism: the distortion of news by the liberal-progressive bias of reporters and editors. To many of you, I suspect, this is filed with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness under self-evident truths. It's useful from time to time, however, to show exactly -- sentence-by-excruciating-sentence, word-by-painful-word -- how this bias undermines modern journalism and destroys trust in reporters' and editors' allegience to truth. So, being duly warned, please proceed, if you wish, at your own risk.
Fish don't know they're wet and reporters don't know they're liberals. You may not believe this, but it's true enough, at least about reporters.
Take David Bradley, Houston native and disgraced tough-on-crime district attorney of Williamson County. (Lisa Falkenberg, "Has disgraced ex-DA really learned his lesson?" Houston Chronicle, October 25, 2012)