For my newspaper dailies, I read the NY Times and LA Times, but their pro Kerry bias is beginning to really turn me off.
For another perspective, I read the WSJ, Weekly Standard and National Review.
I know there are commentators who are centrists or Bush leaning, but is there another major daily that is?
Who are the major commentators who give a Bush perspective, besides Charles Krauthammer.
Excuse my ignorance, but I find myself listing a bit starboard on this election, and I find myself agreeing with the pro Bush camp. I would just like to read more of those voices to see how much I agree.
Bias in favor of one candidate or another is often hard to spot and may be debatable. Likewise what constitutes a “good” newspaper is a matter of opinion. Accordingly, I’ll move this thread to IMHO.
A preponderance of people favoring one item over another doesn’t necessarily indicate a bias. For example, you’d probably find a vast majority of movie critics think Citizen Kane is a better movie than Freddy Got Fingered. Does that mean they’re all biased against Tom Green? Or…is Citizen Kane just a better movie than Freddy Got Fingered?
The Tribune is interesting in that (IMHO) the paper is fairly supportive of Bush, but there is no shortage of individual writers, columnists, editors even, who are definitely not fans. For example, the main editorial after the 1st debate claimed (IIRC) Kerry did not perform well in the debate, so Bush was the default winner. However, within the next few days two columnists, both of whom are on the Editorial board, wrote pieces positing a superior performance by Kerry.
The Trib has a good mix of conservative and liberal columnists in the OpEd page. On the right you would have Charles Krauthammer (sp?), Dennis Byrne, and Kathleen Parker. On the more liberal end is Clarence Page, and Molly Ivins, with Steven Chapman providing the Libertarian-ish view from the side.
My two cents is, you can usually find what you’re looking for.
It’s an interesting question that carries with it a number of problems. Many of the newspapers fly under the same flag. Newspaper conglomerates like Cox severely limit the grassroots reporting of 30 years ago. The reason this happened is not simply the obsorption of one paper by another, it’s because readership is down. The ability of a stand-alone paper to exist with a full staff of reporters is litterally a thing of the past. It can’t be done in the average size city. If you look at your local paper you will likely see by-lines from reporters of other newspapers.
With that said, you can read any newspaper and get information if you learn how to sift out the BS. I would strongly urge someone interested in honest news to take a course in journalism. I considered it one of the top 10 useful classes I took in college. IMO, learning to read and do research objectively should be taught in every HS.
Do you mean a newspaper that has taken an official editorial-page position on the election (“We endorse Kerry/Bush”)? Or do you mean one that seems to run more columnists on one side than another? Or are you talking about apparent bias in the news columns?
Except for a formal endorsement, categorizing a paper is tricky business. The Washington Post is generally considered a liberal paper. But they supported the war in Iraq, and they run a lot of conservatives (George Will, Robert Novak, Charles Krauthammer) on the op-ed page. They also have an ombudsman who writes a weekly column about things readers complain about. Interestingly, the same story will often get complaints from both sides (“You’re always bashing Kerry/Bush!” or “You’re always favoring Kerry/Bush!”). Sometimes readers see whatever they want to see.
