One thing that drives me nuts about the MSM is how they attempt to reach some imagined balance by simply reducing controversial issues to a he said/she said and not even attempt to verify the veracity of the claims of either side. You know, the old 'one side says 2+2=4 while Bush says 2+2=6' so the New York Times comes out for 2+2=5.
Of course this only is applied when presenting a progressive argument. Conservative arguments are thrown in all the time - of course without fact checking or evidence - and without even mentioning the other side of the issue. Take this Mercury News report on the Mexican election (the word report - ie from a reporter - being key here). Towards the bottom of the story the following appears:
But Fox, who brought the National Action Party onto the national stage after decades on the sidelines, soon found his key reforms blocked in a divided Congress, leaving his promises to improve the plight of average Mexicans largely unfulfilled.
So if Fox hadn't had his "reforms" blocked, the "plight of the average Mexican" would have improved? Isn't that an opinion that requires justification or at least the other side of the argument, neither of which appear in the story? Which reforms were these? How do they know that Congress didn't prevent the plight of the millions of poor Mexicans from getting worse? Neo-liberalism doesn't exactly have a glittering record of poverty reduction in Latin America. This is shameful biased lazy reporting.
I am currently putting together a lengthy piece on the Mexican election for a Latin American news service. I will post the story here in English in a week or so. I can assure you that when I make a claim I will supply the evidence (even though this is just an 'irresponsible far-left' blog)
Recent Comments